Caesars Gets A minimal Less Stocky with 11 Percent Price Drop
Divide and Conquer
Adelson Funded study that is iGaming Out Moving, To No-one’s Shock
Las Vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson has funded a study that is four-state, not surprisingly, will not come up in favor of iGaming.
The benefit of studies is, you can generally speaking encourage them to support pretty much any standpoint on just about anything, dependent on who’s involved and how you interpret the data. And if it is mega-billionaire Las Vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson funding the findings, you may be sure the scholarly studies will get any which way you want ’em to.
Adelson No iGaming Fan Himself
It is no news that Adelson for reasons which can be maybe not completely clear to your rest of the mostly pro-iGaming casino industry is vehemently, adamantly opposed to the entire concept of Internet gambling. He has been known to refer to the concept that is very ‘a cancer tumors waiting to occur’ and ‘a toxin which all good people need to resist,’ and even funded TV and print advertisements this past summer towards that end.
Now Adelson’s commissioned poll results on this subject 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 even seasoned journalist Ralston whom hosts the nightly Las Vegas political news show ‘Face to Face’ has noted on his weblog that the findings associated with the study had been ‘quite startling’; mainly, the rather obviously self-serving leanings towards land gaming and away from the Internet version of the same. Namely, legal brick-and-mortar casinos were found to be ‘a method to create income for the state,’ with approval ratings which range from most of 66 percent in Pennsylvania (which has already proved just as much using their present growth in that arena), 61 % in Kentucky, 57 per cent in California and 54 % in Virginia.
But the opinions on iGaming were not quite so friendly.
State Budget Crises Affect Outlooks
Specially interesting there is that neither Kentucky nor Virginia already have any legal land casinos 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 fact, the latest land casino to go up in Pennsylvania Isle of Capri, positioned in southwestern area Farmington had been forced to layoff 15 % of its workforce just two months after opening.
Virginia study participants reportedly showed a disdain for ‘Las Vegas-style gaming.’ We guess that’s diverse from state, ‘Indian casino-style gaming’ or ‘politicians-from-the-suburbs-style gaming.’ Exactly What?
Where this study that is supposedly unbiased interesting is with its reported findings on Internet gambling, however. Because, according to this study, in all four queried states, 3x as many of those who participated didn’t have a positive view of iGaming, with an overall average margin off 66-22 on the ‘ we don’t like it’ side of the fence. Dependent on wording (shock, shock), the views shifted slightly, and Kentucky and Virginia participants stated many vehemently that they were in support of online casino bans, by 63-27 and 55-33 margins respectively.
The poll did not clearly differentiate between general Internet gambling and poker that is online se, however, and before anybody freaks out way too much about what any one of this could 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 in 2011, 67 percent of New Jerseyans were dead set against online casinos, and we see just how that played out.
Supreme Court Judge Rejects Challenge to New York Casino Referendum
Tioga Downs lets its feelings be understood in no uncertain terms regarding New York State’s upcoming casino referendum by voters. (Image source: Ithacajournal.com)
A New York State judge has refused a challenge to the wording of New 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 challenge that is legal be ‘untimely and with a lack of legal merit.’
Delayed Vote Shot Down
That had been a big blow to opponents associated with the measure, who had hoped that they could delay a vote, or at least replace the wording that would appear on the ballot. The case ended up being brought up by Brooklyn bankruptcy lawyer Eric J. Snyder, who objected to the language used into the referendum question. On the ballot, the measure will be described as ‘promoting work development, increasing aid to schools and permitting local governments to lower property taxes.’
That ended up being the language that had been authorized by the State Board of Elections in which consulted with Governor Andrew Cuomo to craft the measure july. The governor is a supporter that is strong of measure, and crafted a range compromises and deals with different interests in their state to help make such a proposition possible.
However, Snyder and others said that the language used was unjust. Since the language included suggested positive outcomes of the casino expansion, it could unfairly bias the total outcomes of the referendum. These issues gained additional merit when a poll by Siena College discovered that support for the ballot referendum increased by nine portion points whenever positive language was included, in comparison to when more neutral language was used.
Justice Platkin dismissed these claims, though. He said that Snyder’s lawsuit ended up being filed far after the 14-day screen in which challenges to ballot-language are permitted had passed. That screen began on August 19 or maybe August 23, according to Snyder, though that would have made little difference and the challenge had not been made until October 1.
Naturally, the state was pleased that their arguments that are legal accepted, and that the vote would continue as prepared.
‘We’re pleased that Judge Platkin accepted the arguments that are legal we raised and that the election process can continue moving forward,’ stated Board of Elections spokesman Thomas Connolly.
Opponents Voice Disappointment
Meanwhile, opponents of the measure had been let down by predictably the decision.
‘We’re disappointed that the judge decided on to block a discussion that is legitimate the merits of whether hawaii 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’s not done yet. He plans to get emergency relief from the appellate courts, and points out that the Board of Elections had the chance to make use of an early in the day version of the referendum suggested by the state attorney general’s workplace that did not range from 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 ny circumstances.
In the event that measure should pass, it would talk about to seven new casino resorts to selected regions of the Empire State. They would join a number of existing casinos that are owned and operated by indigenous US groups throughout the area.