Quote:
Originally Posted by Praxising
I don't think there needs to be more. People who loved FT just loved FT - they wanted the software, they want the look, the tournaments, the whole thing. It would cost Stars much less to get FT online because they are already doing that business and have plenty of employees in place. Also, the local government apparently bent over backwards for them because they were going to do this big expansion and bring in the FTP employees who wanted to continue.
There was a poll here once that asked if FT opened tomorrow would you take your money and run or leave it on the site and play? The vast majority would leave their money on the site and play. FTP started cranking out money for Stars the minute they reopened the doors.
I would guess that FTP will pay for itself before the final bill is due and make a profit for the company. Branding is a huge thing not to be underestimated. If you watch Youtube vids of PAD you see Full Tilt. And always will. I really don't think it needs to be more than it is to be worth more than they paid. Besides, they eliminated their main US competition.
If the FTP patent on fast-fold (Rush/Zoom) poker is ever approved, the purchase of FTP will much more than pay for itself - the future is mobile gambling, and one tabling poker on a five inch screen has no future without a fast-fold option that anyone serving would need to pay PS for the privilege.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeschmoe
There's been speculation about why Stars has interest in B+M casinos. They did virtually the same thing in London (if memory serves) a while back, bought shares in a casino, and the comment from a financial reporter went something like "With this investment, Stars confirms suspicions that it is diversifying away from the online poker business."
Chance are they are doing both .. diversifying and gaining a foothold.
easy search.. google.. tons of hits. Was gonna post a link, but I dunno which one I found. Some London paper.
Pokerstars diversifying away from the online poker business
Their strategy has little to do with diversification, when the investment in the Hippodrome in London occurred it was reported that way as no one else had the foresight to see the way PokerStars was hedging it's bets, but after the Puplelounge meltdown left customers of a publicly traded company in a worse position than even a private company that was operating in dark grey markets (FTP), PokerStars chose to hedge it's bets.
The UK which was laissez-faire in it's approach to online gambling is now, like all other markets, considering ways to protect it's consumers (and gather revenue), which could easily lead to a US type approach where only B&M licensees with real assets are allowed to offer online poker going forward.
So PokerStars invested in the poker room at the Hippodrome as a hedge, but even if the UK chooses to remain laissez-faire, the future of international online poker is clearly going to be based on reciprocity agreements, so even though the UK might not require B&M licensing, a compacting jurisdiction like CA might, so for PokerStars to gain access to that market, it is positioning itself properly by holding B&M assets in jurisdictions that other markets will someday want access.
PokerStars focus is still online poker, they just have a better vision of the future of the online poker industry than many of the people reporting on it.