Caesars Gets A little Less Stocky with 11 Percent Price Drop
Divide and Conquer
Adelson Funded iGaming Study Comes Out Swinging, To No One’s Shock
Las Vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson has funded a four-state study that, needless to say, does not come up in favor of iGaming.
The thing about studies is, you can generally speaking encourage them to support more or less any viewpoint on just about anything, depending on that is involved and exactly how you interpret the information. And if it is mega-billionaire Las Vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson funding the findings, you will be sure the scholarly studies will get any which way you want ‘em to.
Adelson No Fan that is iGaming Himself
It is no news that Adelson for reasons being not completely clear towards the remaining portion of the mostly pro-iGaming casino industry is vehemently, adamantly in opposition to the entire concept of Internet gambling. He’s got been recognized to refer to the concept that is very ‘a cancer tumors waiting to happen’ and ‘a toxin which all good people ought to resist,’ and even funded television and print ads this past summer towards that end.
Now Adelson’s commissioned poll results with this topic happen released and obtained by Nevada public affairs reporter Jon Ralston. The findings focus on four states that are potentially key this matter: California, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Kentucky. Kentucky? Who knew. And journalist that is even seasoned whom hosts the nightly Las Vegas political news show ‘Face to Face’ has noted on his blog that the findings of this research had been ‘quite startling’; mainly, the rather obviously self-serving leanings towards land gaming and away from the web version of the same. Namely, legal brick-and-mortar casinos were found to be ‘a way to generate revenue for hawaii,’ with approval ratings which range from a lot of 66 percent in Pennsylvania (which includes already proved just as much with their recent growth in that arena), 61 per cent in Kentucky, 57 per cent in California and 54 per cent in Virginia.
But the opinions on iGaming were perhaps not quite so friendly.
State Budget Crises Affect Outlooks
Specially interesting there is that neither Kentucky nor Virginia actually have any land that is legal at this juncture in time. The support stemmed largely from a desire to help offset state budget deficits, even though land-based casino saturation nationwide is already starting to rear its ugly head and there is more flatlining to come, according to some industry experts for Pennsylvania and California. In reality, the land casino that is latest to get up in Pennsylvania Isle of Capri, located in southwestern area Farmington was already forced to layoff 15 percent of its workforce only two months after opening.
Virginia study participants reportedly showed a disdain for ‘Las Vegas-style gaming.’ We guess that’s different than say, ‘Indian casino-style gaming’ or ‘politicians-from-the-suburbs-style gaming.’ Just What?
Where this study that is supposedly unbiased interesting is with its reported findings on Internet gambling, but. Because, according to the research, in every four queried states, 3x as much of those who participated did not have positive view of iGaming, by having an general average margin off 66-22 on the ‘ we don’t enjoy it’ side of the fence. According to wording (surprise, surprise), the views shifted slightly, and Kentucky and Virginia participants stated many vehemently that they were and only online casino bans, by 63-27 and 55-33 margins respectively.
The poll did not obviously differentiate between general Internet gambling and on-line poker per se, however, and before anyone freaks out an excessive amount of about what some of this may potentially mean for the future of state-by-state iGaming being regulated and legalized, keep in mind that, according to poker advocate Marco Valerio back 2011, 67 percent of New Jerseyans had been dead set against online casinos, and we see how that played down.
Supreme Court Judge Rejects Challenge to New York Casino Referendum
Tioga Downs lets its feelings be known in no uncertain terms New that is regarding York’s upcoming casino referendum by voters. (Image source: Ithacajournal.com)
A New York State judge has refused a challenge to the wording of the latest York’s upcoming casino referendum, paving the way for voters into the state to vote in the measure in November.
The lawsuit ended up being dismissed by State Supreme Court Justice Richard M. Platkin, who found the legal challenge to be ‘untimely and with a lack of legal merit.’
Delayed Vote Shot Down
That had been a big blow to opponents for the measure, whom had hoped that they might delay a vote, or at least replace the wording that would appear on the ballot. The case was brought up by Brooklyn bankruptcy attorney Eric J. Snyder, who objected to the language used within the referendum question. The measure will be described as ‘promoting job growth, increasing aid to schools and allowing local governments to reduce home taxes. on the ballot’
That was the language that had been approved by the State Board of Elections in which consulted with Governor Andrew Cuomo to craft the measure july. The governor is a strong supporter of the measure, and crafted a wide range of compromises and relates to different passions in the state to make this kind of proposition feasible.
However, Snyder and others said that the language being used was unjust. Since the language included suggested good outcomes of the casino expansion, it could unfairly bias the total outcomes of the referendum. These concerns gained additional merit when a poll by Siena College found that support for the ballot referendum increased by nine percentage points if the good language was included, compared to when more neutral language have been used.
Justice Platkin dismissed these claims, though. He said that Snyder’s lawsuit was filed far after the 14-day window in which challenges to ballot-language are permitted had passed away. That window began on August 19 or even August 23, according to Snyder, though that could have made difference that is little the challenge had not been made until October 1.
Obviously, the state was delighted that their arguments that are legal accepted, and that the vote would go on as prepared.
‘We’re pleased that Judge Platkin accepted the appropriate arguments which we raised and that the election process can continue moving forward,’ said Board of Elections spokesman Thomas Connolly.
Opponents Voice Disappointment
Meanwhile, opponents of the measure had been predictably disappointed by your choice.
‘We’re disappointed that the judge decided to block a discussion that is legitimate the merits of whether their state gamed the language of the casino amendment to tilt New Yorkers to a yes vote,’ stated a statement by the New York Public Interest analysis Group (NYPIRG).
But Snyder says that he is not done yet. He plans to seek emergency relief from the appellate courts, and points out that the Board of Elections had the opportunity to make use of an previous form of the referendum suggested by the state attorney general’s workplace that did not include the ‘advocacy language.’
‘Ignoring the attorney general’s recommendation, the Board of Elections changed the neutrally worded casino amendment by adding language to gain voter support,’ Snyder told The New York days.
In the event that measure should pass, it would mention to seven casino that is new to selected regions of the Empire State. They would join a quantity of existing casinos that are owned and operated by Native US groups throughout the area.