[tonypaladino]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i am not pissed at party, they have the right to do whatever they want with their business.

And if all goes like you say then maybe it might end up being a very good decision for them. It could also backfire. Those other blunders i listed seemed like the right thing to the respective companies at the time too, but long term showed otherwise.

it may very well turn out to be great move for party, but i think many will agree it is a risky one.....and for that i actually do give them credit for having the balls to make a big move like that which can shake up the marketplace.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was probably more a necessary move than a great decision. There is tremendous risk in associating with outside vendors (skins). This requires strong business agreements and monitoring controls. I don't see the skins as the most trustworthy business models in the world. Maybe that is just the image I have given them???? In any event, if the SEC sees these skins as an extension of Party, then Party is at risk for any issues that come from wrongdoing by the skins. It is a matter of control. Control has costs, always.

[/ QUOTE ]

a. the skins are in no way vendors. the most accurate way to decribe them might be "corporate customers" or "affiliates" (not used as "affilitate is commonly used in the poker world, bus as it's used in the business world"

b. The SEC has no authority over a British company. And I doubt the SEC or its UK equivilent would ever penalize a corportation for it's customers' wrongdoing.