I refuse to get my hopes up.

Having said that, my hopes are up.

Many times there's a Drag-Along Right clause in there somewhere.

Gotcha, thanks. It sounded that way because of how much debt Amaya is taking on to finance this deal.

Surely they'll keep everything in place as it is and work on the political angle?

If it isn't broken don't fix it

My first thought as well. Obviously huge for getting back in the USA tho, might be a necessary compromise.

With so many poker companies ****ing up, PS was the silver lining in all the mess that was poker.

If this goes through, I am definitely worried knowing that PS will eventually change from the undisputed reputable enough industry standard. Leaving a large BR on PS to me is not really an issue; If this deal goes through, I have to re-evaluate.

If I had to choose from a player standpoint, as much as PS entering the USA is a good thing, I rather they not and continue as they are if it means being bought out. The USA poker scene will eventually work itself out.

In the end, all we really want is interstate combine play and CA; right? If PS enter the USA or not prob wont change the outcome of how poker plays out in the USA.

I havent been following poker news much anymore so If I am unaware of something, inform me how PS entering the USA is even necessary?

It is a leveraged buyout.

Amaya are putting up $50M in cash, then they are intending to pay the $4.85B by borrowing $2.9B against the assets they just acquired, issuing $1.5B in new shares of the enlarged company, and paying the remaining $450M in cash.

What's your reasoning for this? Obv stars as is is pretty much the nuts from a player standpoint. But they are offshore, this new company is throwing down 5billion to come in and is publicly traded. Don't get the vibe that they can just close up shop and take off with everyone's money.

I'm not an expert on the legal side and obviously would prefer a way for stars to come back to the states with all of their guys at the top intact. Though, I'm not sure that would be possible given bad actor clauses after the Black Friday indictments. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

+1 to this. players better hope that this is a long term play by Amaya. they just put a LOT of debt on the company, and if they plan to increase revenue and/or cut costs that's bad for players.

Thanks for explaining it how I wanted to, Amaya is basically a shell for the deal when they are only putting up $50m.

Im basically just worried that the same top notch service that we know from PS will change and it def will. Obviously they wont close up shop and run off with every ones money.

If i was in your shoes, I would be ecstatic with this news. I am a CA, USA citizen who relocated and have concerns about this. =/

As a relocated CA player, this is just all potential negative to me. If it is going to be a public company in which they have to answer to shareholders etc. even worst =(

Cautiously optimistic that this is the start of reentry to the US market if Stars do it right

as a canadian i dont like this news

id rather see the company privately own and well manage than publicly own /satisfy shareholders/ full of debt

Great news if your in nj... We wanted pokerstars from the start now hofully we can get it!

why do people think this news effects the outlawing/legalization of online poker in the US?

Pretty much this position. This has the potential to be absolutely incredible or a complete trainwreck based on how it's done.

If it's raked/taxed to death or ran incompetently this could be a huge dagger to online poker. If it's run like the stars of old and we get the states in and eventually merged with ROW the sky is the limit...

For cues as to how this might play out, keep your eyes trained on the NJ DGE's reaction.

Remember, they licensed Amaya as a suitable applicant...does the association with PokerStars now get their license yanked? (And if so, what does that mean for Caesars who uses Amaya as their online casino platform?) On the other hand, NJ doesn't specifically have a bad actor clause, and recall that the DGE's statement re: Stars was as follows:

There's no doubt that the transaction would represent "significantly changed circumstances". But that may not be enough...they specifically name-checked Scheinberg and his unresolved indictment. Sure he may be removed from the company (*may be*...they've played some shell games in the past on that front), but the DGE's not just going to rubber stamp Stars because he cashed out his interest into Amaya shares...I don't know. My sense is that when this issue comes up again in NJ 2 years from now, they'll get a license. Getting that timeframe expedited (aka cut to < 2 years) may depend on whether some symbolic pound of Scheinberg flesh can be extracted to allow them to save a bit of face.

Funny how this deal turned out because it is definitely in Pokerstars's favor. I do not see the bad actors clause affecting Amaya or Pokerstars at all. Now that Pokerstars has 100% sold to Amaya, competitors cannot point the fingerat Pokerstars since Amaya is now the parent company of Pokerstars.

Read above and the earlier thread. Who the parent company is has nothing to do with it. The assets are tainted (will argue Stars' enemies). Change of ownership doesn't fix that.

Change of ownership is everything. New Jersey is a sure thing now. The statements about tainted assets only relate to a draft bill written by the California tribes who are trying to keep Pokerstars out of one state. It isn't the law, it's just what the tribes want.

This deal changes everything. The proof of that is bankers and investment funds are putting up the cash for a deal and getting shares in Amaya.

Amaya/Pokerstars-New Jersey should be dealing its first hand around the end of the year.

I don't believe that "bad actor" language targeting assets could stand. First it would set an alarming precedent in gaming law. There are no "tainted" assets that are "unsuitable" to be licensed; assets not are licensed, owners and operators are subject to suitability. Just think of the early days of Vegas and who owned and operated the casinos.

The language is also constitutionally dubious. How can you punish a company who has never been found in violation of state or federal law and even further has settled with the DOJ and admitted no wrongdoing? IMHO, that CA language will be gone before they enact a bill.

John A. Pappas

Great deal for stars.

I have absolutely no idea how Amaya values stars at 5x trailing 12 months revenue, or 10x earnings.

It's not going to effect Americans. The sites that are here are struggling already because of the state segregated pools. Unless you have multiple (5-10) states sharing a player base, all sites are gonna suck wether it's stars or anyone else.

Not good news for those of us playing on Stars in Canada.

Don't see how they can stay in the Canadian market.