Nate, Tyrus and Ralph, I applaud you for arranging this meeting with GCB, and for making Gaming aware of the Club's legitimacy of purpose. A number of people have tried for some years to get an audience with GCB, and were rebuffed with a comment (if they responded at all) similar to, "Move away kid, you bother me." (A la W. C. Fields.)

A dialog with GCB could - and should have - been established years ago if they would have given us the time of day, but they wouldn't.

From your outline, Nate, your presentation was excellent, identifying the very things that distinguish us from nothing but a group of chip grabbing/hoarding idiots.

I might also have made the point that chip collectors - like the UNLV collection - preserve valuable gaming history (Steve Cutler's museum is the most visible example), which in many cases would be long gone without our efforts.

All that said, I believe GCB is absolutely wrong in its stance. Its position is, unfortunately, a typical rigid, bureaucratic black and white approach to the issue.

The meaning of the words "to be used for gaming purposes only" have absolutely nothing at all to do with chip collecting. The sole and legitimate reason for that regulation is so chips aren't used to defraud in commerce because they are easier to counterfeit than currency is, and because GCB has a legitimate concern that if chips were used as currency in NV or elsewhere, its bookkeeping duties would become a mess and NV might lose out on gaming revenue. (Perish the thought!)

The GCB's current "don't as, don't tell" position is ridiculous. "You can make chips for no reason other than to sell to collectors, provided you don't say so on the chips" is plain dumb, and unnecessary.

Even worse is their position that the hosting casino(s) cannot use the Club's name or logo on chips. These chips commemorate EVENTS, legitimately held at THOSE SITES, and can easily be distinguished from chips made by non-host hotels for the purpose of making money by selling them to collectors. They do not "promote" the collecting of chips, any more than a particular performing rock group chip "promotes" the taking of drugs.

I'm not suggesting that the three of you should have slapped GCB in the face with these kinds of arguments, but I do believe they should be presented at some point. Perhaps they were.

And I'm way glad that I'm here on the Club board where I can say these things without worrying about the wrath of GCB coming down on us!

While I understand Al's message, I have to disagree with him on this one, even though I'm a staunch First Amendment strict constructionist. Gaming licenses, like licenses to practice law, are a privilege, not a right. GCB can revoke a license for reasons similar to the "appearance of impropriety" rule for lawyers. Not impropriety, but the APPEARANCE of impropriety. That, I believe, was the rationale for the Imperial Palace action: not what was actually done, but how it made the gaming industry look.

Whether many people cared, is another matter, but the appearance was what was at issue, not the speech itself.

In the case of chips commemorating actual, legitimate events held at a Nevada hotel, the application of the "don't ask, don't tell" rule is, in my opinion, ridiculous.

Michael