Some of the biggest Business blunders in history...

[Brain]

M&M/Mars (or whatever they were called back then) turning down the opportunity to have M&Ms in E.T.

[Yeknom58]

I got one..

Coke declining the option to buy pespi in the early 1930's. They declined, figuring the company wouldn't last much longer.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
- Partypoker (this week) to their skins and biggest customers: "We are not happy about players leaving us for better deals with our skin partners. So we are cutting them off at the knees in order to force those heavy volume players back to our site, and screw our partners in the process.

[/ QUOTE ]

The decision by Party to add casino games to its platform and separate from the skins had a lot less to do with rakeback and professional players than most people think.

[Alex/Mugaaz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
- Partypoker (this week) to their skins and biggest customers: "We are not happy about players leaving us for better deals with our skin partners. So we are cutting them off at the knees in order to force those heavy volume players back to our site, and screw our partners in the process.

[/ QUOTE ]

The decision by Party to add casino games to its platform and separate from the skins had a lot less to do with rakeback and professional players than most people think.

[/ QUOTE ]

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
- Partypoker (this week) to their skins and biggest customers: "We are not happy about players leaving us for better deals with our skin partners. So we are cutting them off at the knees in order to force those heavy volume players back to our site, and screw our partners in the process.

[/ QUOTE ]

That verbiage was from the original poster, not from any actual quote from Party gaming. It is his perception of why they separated.

[drewjustdrew]

[ 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.

[midas]

JDJ -

FYI - I don't believe the SEC has any juridiction over Party or any other offshore gambling stock.

[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.

[DalaiLama]

Correct me if I'm wrong....didn't Bill Gates fly to dallas in the early 80s and pitch microsoft to Ross Perot with a price tag of 30 million or so? Ross Perot also passed on Home Depot during it's infancy.

[gergery]

I think you have little understanding of how Party makes money, and how this decision will affect how they make money.

-g