|
Let's Ban Online Gaming!
|
View this Thread in Original format
| St_Andrew |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5397920.stm
| quote: | Shares of online gaming firms have plunged after the US Congress passed a bill cracking down on internet gambling, threatening their business.
Shares in Partygaming were down 58% at close of London trade, while shares in 888 Holdings tumbled by 26%.
Sportingbet shares dropped by 64% while Empire Online shares slid by 25%.
Several firms have said they could stop taking bets from US customers if the bill is signed into law by President George W Bush in the next two weeks.
The law, part of a sustained clampdown on online gaming in the US, would make it illegal for banks and credit card firms to process online gaming payments from the US.
'Shadow industry'
Companies in the online gambling arena have faced a turbulent year as the threat of a US legal crackdown has depressed share prices.
Bosses from two firms, Sportingbet and Betonsports, were arrested on illegal gambling charges.
Most analysts expected there would not be enough time for Congress to pass a specific law against online gambling before next month's mid-term elections.
But lawmakers took the industry by surprise when an "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act" was eventually attached to an unrelated bill aimed at improving port security.
President Bush is thought unlikely to veto a bill which a senior Republican said was needed to regulate a "shadow industry".
'Clear implications'
Partygaming, 75% of whose revenues derive from the US, said the development was a "significant setback" for it and the whole industry.
One of the other firms affected said the move had come as a surprise.
"It has a specific criminal offence for taking these funds which is something completely new," Gigi Levy, chief operating officer of 888 Holdings, told the BBC.
"It is quite clear that the bill as is has a very clear implication on the legality of our activities in the US."
Mr Levy said his company was less dependent on the US market than it had been a year ago, having promoted itself in other countries.
"I can understand investors will feel a bit of panic," he said, while adding that he was "quite confident" that the firm would recover.
Gaming firms which have floated their shares over the past 18 months warned investors that their prospects could be affected by legal uncertainties in the US.
Analysts were divided over the extent of the likely damage to the online gaming business and its global ambitions.
One described it as "major shock" to the industry while another said it would remove the uncertainty hanging over the sector.
"I think there is still a lot of non-US business there and it is not as if these companies are going to disappear," said Richard Carter, an analyst at Numis Securities. |
Personally I think it's insanity that consumers shouldn't be allowed to spend their money on what they like (even if it's essentially giving their money away). |
|
|
| Michael19 |
Being a big gambler myself i was very interested in this. However not being into poker it didnt bother me hugely, know alot of people who are very pissed off.
I have heard various reasons as to why they did it. the "think of the children brigade" is obviously one. But i have heard its mainly due to the fact that the US citizens are spending there money outside of America? i.e stop them spending online, they will spend it on other things.
Would real life casinos have had a factor in this? I am sure alot of online poker players will wander into real ones now.
Whatever the reason, it taking America further away from a country that prides itself being so "free". |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| Yeah, I don't really understand the justifyable reason behind this. |
|
|
| Dervish |
To quote myself:
"Land of the free until you want to gamble your own money online."
I can understand to an extent I mean if you're wasted and gamble for example your entire William Hill acccount on black as "an expression of how free you are" (after discussing this online) and win and then go "ace I'm winning at gambling go again..." and lose that could be a bad thing.
But still voting George Bush is worse and they let you do that. :p |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| whats the bet (haha!) the traditional gambling institutions are behind this legislation? |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
whats the bet (haha!) the traditional gambling institutions are behind this legislation? |
They should be happy that they don't have to put up with all the people sitting in their Depends™ for hours on end....:wtf: |
|
|
| josh4 |
Oh quit your whining, people. Gambling has been a controlled industry for many years. This was just a matter of time. Chances are most forms of gambling are already illegal in the states you live in, at least those of you that are Americans. Why start bitching now about a crack down on this particular form of gambling?
At any rate, its not going to change very much. It'll just go underground or they'll find a way to process the payments in offshore accounts. I'm sure theres a Republican Senator somewhere that can consult them on how to get around the law. |
|
|
| Floorfiller |
yeah i'm pretty mad about this. i don't really see the point. why don't they make it legal and control it? it's a billion dollar industry that the rest of the world is cashing in on...and hate to say it, but if american banks aren't willing to process my transaction and recieve their commissions, well i'm just going to go to overseas banking options.
i just don't see the point of making things illegal that aren't really going to be regulated or controlled. with poker as popular as it is today, millions of americans are playing online. it's like the whole mp3 thing. what is a good solution? well make legal mp3 downloads...now it's a growing industry.
i suppliment my income with poker so it effects me personally. i'm not sure as to the effect yet, but thinking about it most credit card companies don't allow online gaming transactions already...and most people probably already use a third party internet-based intermediary to complete transactions. are they just going to stop allowing those? because if not...how are they going to inforce anything? it's like saying we won't take transactions from paypal. on my banking statements it doesn't say a poker transaction...it says a transfer from an online intermediary... |
|
|
|
|
