Caesars Gets A little Less Stocky with 11 Percent Price Drop
Divide and Conquer
Adelson Funded iGaming Study Comes Out Moving, To No Body’s Shock
Vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson has funded a study that is four-state, unsurprisingly, doesn’t come up in favor of iGaming.
The benefit of studies is, you can generally cause them to support nearly any viewpoint on just about any such thing, dependent on who is included and how you interpret the data. And when it’s mega-billionaire Las Vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson funding the findings, you may be sure the studies will get any which way you want ’em to.
Adelson No Fan that is iGaming Himself
It’s no news that Adelson for reasons being perhaps not totally clear towards the remaining portion of the mostly pro-iGaming casino industry is vehemently, adamantly opposed to the entire concept of Internet gambling. He’s been proven to refer to the concept that is very ‘a cancer waiting to happen’ and ‘a toxin which all good people need to resist,’ and even funded television and print adverts this past summer towards that end.
Now Adelson’s commissioned poll results on this subject were obtained and released by Nevada public affairs reporter Jon Ralston. The findings focus on four potentially key states in 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 blog that the findings associated with study were ‘quite startling’; mainly, the rather demonstrably self-serving leanings towards land gaming and away from the Internet form of the same. Namely, legal brick-and-mortar casinos were found to be ‘a method to create income for the state,’ with approval ratings including most of 66 percent in Pennsylvania (which includes already proved as much making use of their current growth in that arena), 61 per cent in Kentucky, 57 per cent in California and 54 percent in Virginia.
But the opinions on iGaming were not quite therefore friendly.
State Budget Crises Affect Outlooks
Specially interesting there is that neither Kentucky nor Virginia 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 reality, the latest land casino to go up in Pennsylvania Isle of Capri, positioned in southwestern area Farmington was already 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 say, ‘Indian casino-style gaming’ or ‘politicians-from-the-suburbs-style video gaming.’ What?
Where this supposedly unbiased study gets interesting is with its reported findings on Internet gambling, nonetheless. Because, according for this study, in most four queried states, 3x as numerous of people who participated did not have a positive view of iGaming, by having an average that is overall off 66-22 on the ‘ we don’t want it’ side of the fence. Based on wording (surprise, shock), the views shifted slightly, and Kentucky and Virginia participants stated many vehemently that they had been in favor 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 excessively in 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 2011, 67 percent of New Jerseyans had been dead set against online casinos, and we see just how that played away.
Supreme Court Judge Rejects Challenge to New York Casino Referendum
Tioga Downs lets its feelings be known in no uncertain terms regarding brand new York State’s upcoming casino referendum by voters. (Image source: Ithacajournal.com)
A brand New York State judge has refused a challenge to the wording of New York’s upcoming casino referendum, paving the method for voters in the state to vote regarding the measure in November.
The lawsuit had been dismissed by State Supreme Court Justice Richard M. Platkin, who found the challenge that is legal be indian dreaming slot wins ‘untimely and with a lack of legal merit.’
Delayed Vote Shot Down
That had been a blow that is big opponents associated with measure, who had hoped that they are able to delay a vote, or at least change the wording that would appear on the ballot. The case ended up being brought up by Brooklyn bankruptcy attorney Eric J. Snyder, who objected towards the language used within the referendum question. The measure will be described as ‘promoting work growth, increasing help to schools and allowing local governments to reduce property taxes. on the ballot’
That had been the language that had been authorized by the State Board of Elections in July, which consulted with Governor Andrew Cuomo to craft the measure. The governor is a supporter that is strong of measure, and crafted a wide range of compromises and relates to different passions in hawaii to make such a proposition feasible.
However, Snyder and others said that the language being used was unfair. Since the language included suggested positive outcomes of the casino expansion, it could unfairly bias the results of the referendum. These issues gained merit that is additional a poll by Siena College found that support for the ballot referendum increased by nine portion points as soon as the good language was included, compared to when more neutral language had been used.
Justice Platkin dismissed these claims, though. He said that Snyder’s lawsuit was filed far after the window that is 14-day which challenges to ballot-language are permitted had passed. That window began on August 19 or possibly August 23, according to Snyder, though that could have made little difference and the challenge was not made until October 1.
Obviously, the state was pleased that their legal arguments were accepted, and that the vote would go on as planned.
‘We’re happy that Judge Platkin accepted the arguments that are legal we raised and that the election process can carry on 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 opted for 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 brand new York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG).
But Snyder says that he’s not done yet. He plans to find emergency relief from the courts that are appellate and points out that the Board of Elections had the opportunity to use an earlier version 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 help,’ Snyder told The nyc 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 quantity of existing casinos that are owned and operated by native groups that are american the area.