|
|
#12
10-19-2005, 03:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Recreational Players view on the Party Debacle.... (Long)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I still think those actions reak of despracy, (though the despracy may be baseless). [/ QUOTE ] Please define despracy . [/ QUOTE ] Wow, I guess desperatness. At first I thought you were being a nit because I mispelled it, but apparently I spelled the non existant word perfectly. Clearly, there is a gap in the language. 
|
|
#13
10-19-2005, 03:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Recreational Players view on the Party Debacle.... (Long)
[ QUOTE ]
The assumption that it was clearly thought out is a big assumption. [/ QUOTE ] Maybe I've just spoke to more people and read more PP statements, market analysis and commentary than you have! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [ QUOTE ] Additionally, I don't know how you can say this was necessary for Party to fight off their partners. [/ QUOTE ] You are a regular here... all you have to do is read the posts by all the people who stopped playing at Party for a better deal at Empire and you will understand, that Party's action was a necessary business decision! [ QUOTE ] There is a commonly held belief that a good company implies a good stock and a bad company implies a bad stock (I'm not saying you believe this, but a lot of people do). I have no clue as to whether Party is a good company or a good stock, but I have my doubts about their vision and leadership. [/ QUOTE ] This is a commonly held belief that is wrong, just because a company is good, doesn't mean that their stock is good! You can read my thoughts on this in the Stock Market Forum
|
|
#14
10-19-2005, 03:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Recreational Players view on the Party Debacle.... (Long)
[ QUOTE ]
This is a commonly held belief that is wrong, just because a company is good, doesn't mean that their stock is good! You can read my thoughts on this in the Stock Market Forum [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, I never really finished that thought or assumed most people would recognize it was bad reasoning, but then again, if most people realized it was bad reasoning it wouldn't be a comonly held belief [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].
|
|
#16
10-19-2005, 05:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Recreational Players view on the Party Debacle.... (Long)
[ QUOTE ]
The assumption that it was clearly thought out is a big assumption. I cited a huge blunder (out of many candidates) that was made by a much bigger company for much bigger stakes where they did not perform due dilligence but got swept away with a notion. [/ QUOTE ] I think this is a crazy notion TBH. IMO, To think that this move wasn't clearly thought out is just ludicrous, do you think Party just woke up one day and said "Do you what let's get rid of these annoying skins after lunch today!!" Not a chance, whatever way their contracts are set up with the skins, these would have been thoroughly gone through to ensure they limit any possible liability that they might have. This decision would have been weighed up and decided upon based on expert opinions, projections and reports prepared by various highly qualified and experienced consultants, specialist strategic analysts, etc. etc. There was no due diligence to be carried out, as they were not acquiring any outside company, nor were they getting into bed with a new investor, etc. all they were doing was making a decision as to how best stem the flow of players to these skins, and how to secure their revenue for the future. Just because another company made a cock up doesn't even remotely compare to this situation, the difference between the situations is huge. [ QUOTE ] Also, the fact that PP still has the most market share does not mean that things are going the way they planned, or even well for them. I'm pretty certain they didn't plan on their stock tanking 3 months after the IPO [/ QUOTE ] Exactly what more could they want, a complete monopoly over the entire industry?? On-line poker is a still massively growing industry, this growth may have calmed down slightly recently, after the "Moneymaker Boom" but it is still a growing industry for the moment anyway. And to retain their market position, in the face of hugely increased competition is very difficult. I'm also fairly sure they didn't plan on their stock "tanking" after 3 months either, but in order to stem this tide they needed to do something major, I wonder what they could do???? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
