Further to posts in the thread concerning the many threats to the provision of online poker in Australia,many of us are agreed that it is time to become organised as one voice. There is no doubt now that online poker in Australia could be facing virtually existential threat, and I don't think I am being alarmist in saying that. The media reporting has been so one sided that we players and lovers of the game virtually don't have a voice, and we need one quickly.

In order for us to set up an organisation similar to the role and scope of the American PPA, there needs to be input from all the posters here so this thread is opened for all collective thoughts, brain storms and well meaning advice.

Whilst Im happy to help facilitate this effort, I feel the more of us participating the better as any organisation we commence at its heart will need to exist for the benefits of the members. So I invite all 2 plus 2 posters and lurkers to take ownership of this idea and contribute thier thoughts.

As I have previously stated in the other thread, the actual legalities to setup are quite straightforward, and I will comment on this in more detail soon.

To kick this discussion off in specifics however, we need to define 2 things early .

Firstly, what should our name be? I would think that a name along the lines of "poker players alliance Australia" would be a starting point, but lets throw that open.

The second and even more important starting issue, and in some ways the most complex is , what should our objects be? In other words why do we exist.

Of course lobbying for the right to play online is a given, but I think we need to be an organisation which is just as likely to attract the casual pub social player at one end to serious live and online pros at the other.

Once we have identified our objects, (our charter and mission statements would flow from this) we would incorporate this into our overall constitution. I will be reviewing various associations and nonprofit constitutions over the next few days and will report back.

Once we have agreement on our purposes, I will collect our thoughts and draft something up here for posting for discussion.

Please make this thread known to all Australian players here on 2plus2 and elsewhere.

Mods, please advise me if we are breaching any posting guidelines here as we develop this concept.

cheers all.

Bruce

My initial thought is we must know we are fighting a battle here that is most likely going to be lost, not to be negative, but we want people to be realistic in that this is not going to solve the problem. But it will give us a voice to lobby from.

On this basis and for longevity I believe the organisation needs to ensure that its objects are not just the promotion of legalised online poker, but more so the support and promotion of Poker as a skilled based game rather than a gambling activity.

Other objectives:

1. provide a united voice recognised by the Government of Australia to discuss laws and issues of government policy in relation to the game of poker.

(main objective obviously)

2. Promote and encourage the growth of poker as a skilled based game.

(this is a pretty common objective of these sorts of organisations)

3. educate the public in relation to poker and the benefits the games provide to the Australain public.

(horse racing gets a much better footing because of the fact it creates numerous jobs, training, support, etc. It is also a industry that has integrity within its actions and activities. ie not letting underage people gamble, actions to reduce under age drinking, protection of horses and RSPCA issues, etc. We need to educate the public of the things we do as poker players and the fact that the entire industry creates jobs, has a role to play in the daily lives of people and is not just about high rollers, and big losers.).

Initial thoughts, i will add to this as we go along.

cheers

Hi Bruce,

A poster on another forum alerted me to your thread and thought I should post my comments here.

First off allow me to introduce myself; my name is Garth Kay and I am currently the National Operations Manager for the 888Poker League. As of July 1st I will also be responsible for the Australian Poker League and both brands account for over 70% of the national pub poker market and we will seat over 150,000 player per month.

What you have proposed above is something that many of us within the industry have looked at doing for quite some time. Several people inside the industry have discussed this repeatedly and all have a differing opinion on the best way to proceed.

My thoughts, and these are shared by a few, is to firstly form a players council or alliance, not for the purpose of lobbying or having a political agenda but to ensure that all poker players are treated fairly and operators can be held accountable for inappropriate actions. Also there is a view to ensuring that players are held to a code of ethics in some manner.

To form any sort of body that has any political format you firstly need the support from the market, and therefore "votes in the bag" and after that you need the necessary funds to lobby political identities and parties.

If you would like to progress with the above plan then I am willing to offer my assistance and that of the APL and 888PL players network. I also have spoken to several industry leaders on the subject matter and have their support on moving forward with this.

So in answer to your questions I think we should be looking to form an alliance/council whose first mission is to protect players first and foremost and secondly to offer guidance and set a code of conduct for players. If a player/operator cheats or continues to act in an immoral manner then there should be harsh repercussions for that individual/organisation.

I have already begun work on something similar and if you are interested in discussing this in more detail and leading this project then please let me know.

All the best.

Regards,

Garth Kay

I'm right behind this :-)

Studies would need to be done at the same standard as studies done by groups who are anti-online poker.

A thoroughly researched, professional interpretation of the IGA would need to be available.

Am +1 to being behind this.

I'm in.

I definitely agree with Garth's post. The alliance should be more than just promoting poker and fighting for its legality; it should focus largely on setting up regulations and codes of ethics to keep poker safe (no corruption i.e. UB scandal), fair (no cheaters) and transparent (no money laundering). Without a regulatory body, I think any attempts to legalise poker are useless.

I am more than willing to help out however I can with this. The first thing I think we need to do though is decide on who is going to lead this. Garth, do you know anyone in the industry (yourself included) who would be competent and willing to manage the alliance?

the ones who will be leading it are the ones willing to put the most work in.

First priority must be making sure it is legal to play online poker. That is under threat more than anything else by far.

Hey All,

I defently support this action, I think we should not just be looking at the Online Poker Ladscape but also live Poker, I started out in Poker playing APL and Tripple 8 here in QLD. A problem we have up here is that we don't even have Live Real Money MTTs unlike other states.

Regards,
BigAl

I'm from the Gold Coast and there are semi-regular MTTs at Conrad Jupiter's

I don't agree with this.

As bad as this industry can be its preferable to regulation imo.

Don't make deals with the devil if you don't have to.

I don't believe the AFP can shut down poker sites offering services to Australian players. ONLY, If they do should this alliance be considered/formed.

I have been in contact with Nick Xenophon and online poker is not a priority at this stage. It will be discussed here. The joiint select committee on gambling reform is what you need to be watching.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committ...ctte/index.htm
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committ...tising/tor.htm


Having said that I can be of help as I have contacts in the Liberal Party Victorian branches.

Do you know when this will be discussed?

Thanks

On 28 October 2010 the Senate referred the following matter to the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform for inquiry and report.
The inquiry into the prevalence of interactive and online gambling was initially referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs on 24 June 2010 by Senator Xenophon. Due to the prorogation of the 42nd Parliament the committee was unable to provide a comprehensive report and resolved to reconsider the inquiry in the event that it was re-referred to the committee in the new parliament. On 30 September 2010 the reference was revised and re-referred to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee.

On 28 October 2010 Senator Xenophon by leave moved that:

(a) the inquiry into the prevalence of interactive and online gambling in Australia be withdrawn from the Community Affairs References Committee and be referred to the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform in line with the terms of reference of the committee; and
(b) in conducting its inquiry, the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform have the power to consider and use the records of the Community Affairs References Committees appointed in this Parliament and in the previous Parliament relating to the inquiry.

Individuals and organisations who provided submissions to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs will be invited to review and update their submissions.

Under the terms of reference (see i) the committee will also inquire into gambling advertising.

Submissions should be received by 30 June 2011.

The Committee is seeking written submissions from interested individuals and organisations preferably in electronic form submitted online or sent by email to gamblingreform@aph.gov.au as an attached Adobe PDF or MS Word format document. The email must include full postal address and contact details.

Alternatively, written submissions may be sent to:

Committee Secretary
Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Australia

Notes to help you prepare your submission are available from the website at http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committ..._sub/index.htm. Alternatively, the Committee Secretariat will be able to help you with your inquiries and can be contacted on telephone +61 2 6277 3433 or facsimile +61 2 6277 5809 or by email to gamblingreform@aph.gov.au.

Inquiries from hearing and speech impaired people should be directed to Parliament House TTY number 02 6277 7799. Adobe also provides tools at http://access.adobe.com/ for the blind and visually impaired to access PDF documents. If you require any special arrangements to enable you to participate in the Committee's inquiry, please contact the Committee Secretariat.

Once the Committee accepts your submission, it becomes a confidential Committee document and is protected by Parliamentary Privilege. You must not release your submission without the Committee's permission. If you do, it will not be protected by Parliamentary Privilege. At some stage during the inquiry, the Committee normally makes submissions public and places them on its website. Please indicate if you want your submission to be kept confidential.

For further information, contact:

Committee Secretary
Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Australia
Phone: +61 2 6277 3433
Fax: +61 2 6277 5809
Email: gamblingreform@aph.gov.au

Thanks, let's just hope wilneedheart doesn't respond

lol

I don't think that trying to regulate online poker sites is an effective use of limited resources, I think the focus should be on having online poker treated equally to sports betting or horse racing where online bets are obviously permitted.

Simply put, I think "we" should campaign for the implementation of the Productivity Commission's recommendation that online poker be regulated and provided in Australia.

As stated in the previous thread, I am happy to help & will do whatever is needed...

This idea begun as a result of a recent article in the Courier Mail:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/t...-1226059899876

The issue is that the Australian Interactive Gambling Act (IGA), prohibits companies (both Aussie & International), to provide online poker services to Australian citizens.

If this is enforced the AFP will not shut down the sites, but we will likely wind up in a Black Friday situation where we are unable to play.

Thus the idea to be proactive and form a voice arose..

This is contradictory, saying that we shouldn't waste resources regulating online poker then going on to say we should support the Productivity Commission's recommendation that online poker be regulated and provided in Australia.

I agree that we should support the Productivity Commission's recommendation and think that regulating online poker is essential for it to have a sustainable future, primarily for two reasons. First, due to the gambling problems some people experience so sites should be overseen to be promoting reasonable use and second to manage the risk of AML/CTF which all money transfer services are exposed to.

In response to the initial points Bruce made, I believe the name "Poker Player Alliance Australia," is fine.

As far as our objectives; well I imagine these will be similar to those of the existing PPA.

Obviously there will be objectives which are unique within an Australia context, however for the most part I believe the objetives will be similar.

The current PPA mission statement is as follows:

This is a good starting point for us, we should review what is applicable to our situation, what is not, what needs to be added etc.

There is a key point here about the membership base, if 888Poker and the Australian Poker League do come on board and become stakeholders, the ability to advertise membership to their players will be of great use.

For this reason, whilst ensuring we aren't hit by our own Black Friday is of critical importance, the needs of live players (re accountable operators, etc), must be taken on board & looked after within our objectives.

I'm saying that a "player's alliance" should not try to be a regulatory body.
I agree with the two above factors.

I am most definitely in support of a poker body that will fight for the rights of Australians who wish to play online and/or live poker.

If online poker were to be regulated in Australia, does that mean we will branch off like some of the EU countries like Italy and France, only being allowed to play against other Australian players? This would be horrible for online professionals like myself because there simply would not be a big enough player base to get any sort of volume in.

Thanks for all the posts so far guys, great start to the discussion.

Welcome to you Garth, I see it as essential that our proposed alliance covers the needs of live players and I certainly could not imagine us having any modicum of success as an organised body without the input of yourself and your member base.

Whilst I am very happy to help get this idea facilitated, I certainly dont have tickets on myself and expect to be the prime mover, I really do think we will all need to pitch in. In that case I will be more than happy to take a back seat to those with the energy,vision and motivation to take it further.

That said, I recognize that we may all have a different perspective on what emphasis our organisation should take. With that in mind and recognizing that we want to be meaningful to all prospective stakeholders who love our great game, I think our objects need to such that we all feel represented as a "broad church" of people for want of a better word.

I agree with what Garth says that we need to have membership clout to overtly affect the politics of our situation, but all ventures start with small beginnings.

So in terms of a specific action plan, I plan over the weekend to draft up some objects/ mission paragraphs to post for discussion. This will be a work in progress and I expect this will undergo some change as it happens and we discuss it.

If Bishop 44 could pm me (or indeed post here) with some suggestions as to the sort of aims relevant to his stakeholders I will seek to incorporate them into the draft.

I am also reviewing a few constitutions and one very good one in particular provided by FSL009.

As this process can be time consuming, as far as immediate action goes I concur with all the posters recommending we each take some time out to post our submissions to the parliamentary committee in our capacity as private citizens.

I also throw open an invitation to those of you who may wish to contact me in person to discuss in more detail ; send me a pm and I will forward my private business contact details.

cheers all

Bruce

Not necessarily - Belgium, Estonia, Isle of Man and England have regulatory models that allow worldwide liquidity.

FWIW, recent news reports indicate that France and Italy appear to be recognising the limitations of limited liquidity and are moving to work more closely with other jurisdictions.

As I've said before segregated player pools were always going to be merged eventually - bigger player pools are better for all parties players/sites/countries and especially in the EU area there's precedent- think of the Euromillions.

I do however expect some kind of regulatory exchange agreement will come to occur and some countries (and offshore regulatory locations) currently accepted with insufficient or ineffective regulation will be barred from the eventual global regulated player pool.

+1

FWIW we do not feel it necessary to draw attention to poker (online or live) at the government level or really at any level for that matter.

The only things I, and those I have spoken to, feel are a necessity or at least marginally required right now is a body of people that represents players and act as liaisons/representative council/forum for casino's and poker providers alike as well as possibly offers one dissenting voice/commentary for the thoughts of players and operators alike when the media decides to throw up some negative arguments.

The above is about as much that is possible in the current climate if you are looking for the support from casino's and certain operators. I can also state that a few online poker rooms will not be interested in supporting this and those that are interested in supporting will not be interested until the focus is on online legislation.

The above is what I posted in PNW.

I will answer the other posts later this afternoon, have a lot of meetings today.