This just in from Inquirer reporter Suzette Parmley, who got Trump on the phone in his New York office.
Parmley reports that Trump has no plans to appeal. But he doesn't sound happy.
"I'm very disappointed in Gov. Rendell," said Trump, whose application was the only applicant proposing to build a casino off the waterfront. "Here was a chance to turn a bad area into a really good neighborhood."
But Trump's a realist, apparently.
"It's one of those things," he told Parmley. "It's a deal that didn't happen, and we just have to move on to the next deal."
--A.C.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Rendell: no politics, just merit
Gov. Rendell was all about showing the love earlier today when speaking to reporters about the gaming board's decision.
The governor said he thought the board did "a great job," adding that he believes the choices it made were chosen based on merit, not politics.
He said he was surprised by a few of the winners, including the selection of Detroit-based casino developer Don H. Barden -- the underdog for Pittsburgh's slots license.
He was also surprised by Trump's loss in Philadelphia.
"Donald Trump is one of the biggest names in the industry," said Rendell, pointing out that Trump was also a good friend of his and that he never tried to influence the board about his application.
The governor did appear to get a little testy when Patriot News reporter Charlie Thompson questioned his statement about how political connections did not play a role. Thompson asked Rendell whether he was disappointed, for instance, that Louis DeNaples, an applicant with a felony conviction, got a casino license.
"Is he more politically connected than Ron Rubin [of Foxwoods] or the group that was proposing to build at the incinerator site [Riverwalk]" Rendell asked, later adding that DeNaples has been certified by various federal and state agencies as fit to do business. "Almost every application ... had tremendous political connections."
((Just to set the record straight: Rendell's comments aside, Ron Rubin himself is not an investor in Foxwoods. The Rubin family has set up a charitable trust that is in an investor, and plans on turning over its portion of profits to charity)).
--A.C.
The governor said he thought the board did "a great job," adding that he believes the choices it made were chosen based on merit, not politics.
He said he was surprised by a few of the winners, including the selection of Detroit-based casino developer Don H. Barden -- the underdog for Pittsburgh's slots license.
He was also surprised by Trump's loss in Philadelphia.
"Donald Trump is one of the biggest names in the industry," said Rendell, pointing out that Trump was also a good friend of his and that he never tried to influence the board about his application.
The governor did appear to get a little testy when Patriot News reporter Charlie Thompson questioned his statement about how political connections did not play a role. Thompson asked Rendell whether he was disappointed, for instance, that Louis DeNaples, an applicant with a felony conviction, got a casino license.
"Is he more politically connected than Ron Rubin [of Foxwoods] or the group that was proposing to build at the incinerator site [Riverwalk]" Rendell asked, later adding that DeNaples has been certified by various federal and state agencies as fit to do business. "Almost every application ... had tremendous political connections."
((Just to set the record straight: Rendell's comments aside, Ron Rubin himself is not an investor in Foxwoods. The Rubin family has set up a charitable trust that is in an investor, and plans on turning over its portion of profits to charity)).
--A.C.
One Man's post mortem....
Some parting thoughts from the Susquehanna Financial Group's gambling analyst, Robert LaFleur, who correctly predicted four out of the five licenses....
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
PA Gaming License Post Mortem
ISLE: Positive; LVS: Positive; HET: Neutral; PNK: None; TRMP: None
Robert A. LaFleur
Robert Shore
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After a tremendous build-up, it was over in minutes. The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board (PGCB) voted for the first license at around 11:24am E.T. this morning, and by 11:31am five licenses had been awarded.
There were few surprises, and four out of our five predicted winners prevailed. The winners for the two Philadelphia licenses were HSP Gaming (the SugarHouse project) and Philadelphia Entertainment (the Foxwoods project). These were our two top picks.
Prior to yesterday we had Foxwoods and Pinnacle running neck and neck, but gave the nod to Foxwoods after their final pleading yesterday. The two at-large winners were LVS's Bethworks project in the Lehigh Valley and Mt. Airy in the Poconos. These two projects had been our front-runners for the at-large licenses for many months.
The biggest surprise, and our biggest miss, was Pittsburgh. The PGCB shunned both Isle of Capri Casinos and HET/Forest City, and awarded the lone Pittsburgh license to PITG (Don Barden's project). Apparently the Board was not nearly as concerned about the fate of the Pittsburgh Penguins as we thought they would be.
Overall, four of the five awardees were private companies. The only public company to win a license was LVS. ISLE, PNK, HET, and TRMP were all shut out.
HIGHLIGHTS
What's next?
Applicants who did not win have the right to appeal to the State Supreme Court. We think there is little chance that any of the appeals will be heard, let alone be successful, but the winners do not officially receive their licenses until the appeals process runs its course. Our PA sources tell us that this process could take 4-6 months before the final licenses are issued. It is not clear if the successful applicants will go ahead and begin early construction on their projects before physically receiving their licenses or not. During the next several weeks we also expect the PGCB to issue evaluations of each of the applications and the rationale used for selecting or rejecting each applicant. These assessments are expected by mid-January.
What helped, what hurt: nearby competition?
From those applicants that were granted licenses, a couple of issues jump out. First, no company with properties in Atlantic City was granted a license. TRMP, PNK, and Aztar/Tropicana, who each have properties in Atlantic City, were all denied a license. Two of the successful applicants have no other gaming properties (SugarHouse and Mt. Airy). The gaming interests of the other three successful applicants are well away from Pennsylvania: LVS (Las Vegas, Macau), PITG/Don Barden (Gary, Black Hawk, Las Vegas, and Tunica), and Foxwoods (Connecticut). It would also appear that having a frequent player program - for which applicants who had them (HET and TRMP) touted as a potential driver of business - was not seen in a favorable light by the Board. Perhaps the PGCB thought these programs were as (or more) likely to export Pennsylvania patrons to other properties as they were to import patrons from elsewhere into PA.
What helped, what hurt: tax take vs. community impact?
Clearly revenue generation was not the sole factor the Board considered. Most observers in Philadelphia thought one inland and one riverfront casino would generate the most revenue. TRMP, the only inland casino, did not win, so this clearly was not the sole factor. In fact, internal revenue projections were highest for TRMP and Planet Hollywood, and neither won. TRMP could not overcome its AC conflicts, community opposition, and the Board's apparent skepticism that its project would be a net benefit to its host community. That said, outside Philly, the two at-large licenses went to the projects with the highest projected revenue generation. Neither the Mt. Airy nor LVS received much community opposition, while both offered clear revitalization benefits.
What helped, what hurt: focus on the casino?
PITG won in Pittsburgh by focusing on the casino. PITG stayed out of the Penguins arena debate and let HET/Forest City and ISLE beat each other up over the issue. Yesterday the PGCB was clearly agitated that so much of the debate in Pittsburgh had focused on the arena and not the casino. When asked about whether its lack of a player tracking system would hurt its prospects, PITG said that it was focused on running a casino in Pittsburgh for people who lived in and around Pittsburgh, not moving people between casinos. It also helped that the Board's revenue projections for PITG were higher than the competitors.
What helped, what hurt: connections?
While political connections, local ties, degree of minority ownership, and other "inside baseball" factors were supposed to play a big role in these PA license awards, at the end of the day we think, by and large, the best all-around projects won. The process seemed about as fair as it could be.
##
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
PA Gaming License Post Mortem
ISLE: Positive; LVS: Positive; HET: Neutral; PNK: None; TRMP: None
Robert A. LaFleur
Robert Shore
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After a tremendous build-up, it was over in minutes. The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board (PGCB) voted for the first license at around 11:24am E.T. this morning, and by 11:31am five licenses had been awarded.
There were few surprises, and four out of our five predicted winners prevailed. The winners for the two Philadelphia licenses were HSP Gaming (the SugarHouse project) and Philadelphia Entertainment (the Foxwoods project). These were our two top picks.
Prior to yesterday we had Foxwoods and Pinnacle running neck and neck, but gave the nod to Foxwoods after their final pleading yesterday. The two at-large winners were LVS's Bethworks project in the Lehigh Valley and Mt. Airy in the Poconos. These two projects had been our front-runners for the at-large licenses for many months.
The biggest surprise, and our biggest miss, was Pittsburgh. The PGCB shunned both Isle of Capri Casinos and HET/Forest City, and awarded the lone Pittsburgh license to PITG (Don Barden's project). Apparently the Board was not nearly as concerned about the fate of the Pittsburgh Penguins as we thought they would be.
Overall, four of the five awardees were private companies. The only public company to win a license was LVS. ISLE, PNK, HET, and TRMP were all shut out.
HIGHLIGHTS
What's next?
Applicants who did not win have the right to appeal to the State Supreme Court. We think there is little chance that any of the appeals will be heard, let alone be successful, but the winners do not officially receive their licenses until the appeals process runs its course. Our PA sources tell us that this process could take 4-6 months before the final licenses are issued. It is not clear if the successful applicants will go ahead and begin early construction on their projects before physically receiving their licenses or not. During the next several weeks we also expect the PGCB to issue evaluations of each of the applications and the rationale used for selecting or rejecting each applicant. These assessments are expected by mid-January.
What helped, what hurt: nearby competition?
From those applicants that were granted licenses, a couple of issues jump out. First, no company with properties in Atlantic City was granted a license. TRMP, PNK, and Aztar/Tropicana, who each have properties in Atlantic City, were all denied a license. Two of the successful applicants have no other gaming properties (SugarHouse and Mt. Airy). The gaming interests of the other three successful applicants are well away from Pennsylvania: LVS (Las Vegas, Macau), PITG/Don Barden (Gary, Black Hawk, Las Vegas, and Tunica), and Foxwoods (Connecticut). It would also appear that having a frequent player program - for which applicants who had them (HET and TRMP) touted as a potential driver of business - was not seen in a favorable light by the Board. Perhaps the PGCB thought these programs were as (or more) likely to export Pennsylvania patrons to other properties as they were to import patrons from elsewhere into PA.
What helped, what hurt: tax take vs. community impact?
Clearly revenue generation was not the sole factor the Board considered. Most observers in Philadelphia thought one inland and one riverfront casino would generate the most revenue. TRMP, the only inland casino, did not win, so this clearly was not the sole factor. In fact, internal revenue projections were highest for TRMP and Planet Hollywood, and neither won. TRMP could not overcome its AC conflicts, community opposition, and the Board's apparent skepticism that its project would be a net benefit to its host community. That said, outside Philly, the two at-large licenses went to the projects with the highest projected revenue generation. Neither the Mt. Airy nor LVS received much community opposition, while both offered clear revitalization benefits.
What helped, what hurt: focus on the casino?
PITG won in Pittsburgh by focusing on the casino. PITG stayed out of the Penguins arena debate and let HET/Forest City and ISLE beat each other up over the issue. Yesterday the PGCB was clearly agitated that so much of the debate in Pittsburgh had focused on the arena and not the casino. When asked about whether its lack of a player tracking system would hurt its prospects, PITG said that it was focused on running a casino in Pittsburgh for people who lived in and around Pittsburgh, not moving people between casinos. It also helped that the Board's revenue projections for PITG were higher than the competitors.
What helped, what hurt: connections?
While political connections, local ties, degree of minority ownership, and other "inside baseball" factors were supposed to play a big role in these PA license awards, at the end of the day we think, by and large, the best all-around projects won. The process seemed about as fair as it could be.
##
Councilman Frank DiCicco plans an appeal...
Councilman DiCicco is far from pleased with the Gaming Board's decision. Check out his press release below.
News from
Councilman Frank DiCicco
1st District
For Immediate Release
Councilman Frank DiCicco announced that he intends to file an appeal after the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board’s announced that SugarHouse and Foxwoods Casinos would be issued gaming licenses.
The lawsuit will challenge the issuance of a license to Foxwoods and will explore how and why the PGCB made their final determination.
“There were a lot of concerns raised over this proposal. Concerns not just from community activists, but from engineers, city officials and politicians.” DiCicco said. “I find it difficult to believe that the Board ignored these concerns and I’d like to know why they did.”
In his written testimony in June, DiCicco raised several concerns regarding Foxwoods’ proposal including increased traffic congestion and its proximity to a residential neighborhood. In the same statement, DiCicco was less critical of SugarHouse but did express reservations about the site’s proximity to near neighbors.
Last week, DiCicco had asked the PGCB to delay their announcement for six weeks to address the problems created if two facilities were built on the River. In addition, he believes that a delay would allow the waterfront planning process to be completed in order to provide the Board with specific recommendations.
“Not surprisingly, the Board ignored my constituents and me when they came to this decision,” DiCicco continued, “I think it’s a horrible decision. I will do everything I can to delay construction of the facilities until some of these serious concerns are addressed.”
Regardless of the result of the lawsuit, concerns will still exist over the near neighbors’ quality-of-life. DiCicco pledges to work with the communities and the developers to address these issues and has stated that he will delay zoning approval until agreements can be reached.
Four of the five gaming proposals were located in DiCicco’s district and the Councilman has established himself as a leader on the issue. His efforts include providing written and oral testimony before the PGCB, sponsoring the City’s casino zoning classification, fighting and winning the retention of the City’s zoning rights, calling on the PGCB to delay its decision and sponsoring several resolutions.
#
News from
Councilman Frank DiCicco
1st District
For Immediate Release
Councilman Frank DiCicco announced that he intends to file an appeal after the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board’s announced that SugarHouse and Foxwoods Casinos would be issued gaming licenses.
The lawsuit will challenge the issuance of a license to Foxwoods and will explore how and why the PGCB made their final determination.
“There were a lot of concerns raised over this proposal. Concerns not just from community activists, but from engineers, city officials and politicians.” DiCicco said. “I find it difficult to believe that the Board ignored these concerns and I’d like to know why they did.”
In his written testimony in June, DiCicco raised several concerns regarding Foxwoods’ proposal including increased traffic congestion and its proximity to a residential neighborhood. In the same statement, DiCicco was less critical of SugarHouse but did express reservations about the site’s proximity to near neighbors.
Last week, DiCicco had asked the PGCB to delay their announcement for six weeks to address the problems created if two facilities were built on the River. In addition, he believes that a delay would allow the waterfront planning process to be completed in order to provide the Board with specific recommendations.
“Not surprisingly, the Board ignored my constituents and me when they came to this decision,” DiCicco continued, “I think it’s a horrible decision. I will do everything I can to delay construction of the facilities until some of these serious concerns are addressed.”
Regardless of the result of the lawsuit, concerns will still exist over the near neighbors’ quality-of-life. DiCicco pledges to work with the communities and the developers to address these issues and has stated that he will delay zoning approval until agreements can be reached.
Four of the five gaming proposals were located in DiCicco’s district and the Councilman has established himself as a leader on the issue. His efforts include providing written and oral testimony before the PGCB, sponsoring the City’s casino zoning classification, fighting and winning the retention of the City’s zoning rights, calling on the PGCB to delay its decision and sponsoring several resolutions.
#
Tad Decker speaks - kind of....
Now that we know the "who" and the "where," we'd like to know why.
But after the meeting today, Gaming Control Board chairman Tad Decker would not give any insight into why the board chose the applicants they did (in Philly's case, that would be SugarHouse and Foxwood casinos). He said the board -- which fashions itself kind of like a court of judges -- will be issuing a written opinion within a couple of weeks.
He did say members deliberated for four hours yesterday before making up their mind -- which some critics pointed out was record time for what should be a weighty matter.
Decker's explanation: "We have been thinking about this individually for months."
--A.C. and J.S.
But after the meeting today, Gaming Control Board chairman Tad Decker would not give any insight into why the board chose the applicants they did (in Philly's case, that would be SugarHouse and Foxwood casinos). He said the board -- which fashions itself kind of like a court of judges -- will be issuing a written opinion within a couple of weeks.
He did say members deliberated for four hours yesterday before making up their mind -- which some critics pointed out was record time for what should be a weighty matter.
Decker's explanation: "We have been thinking about this individually for months."
--A.C. and J.S.
Other winners from around the state...
The winners for the other standalone casinos around the state:
Las Vegas-based casiono operator Las Vegas Sands Corp. won a license for a casino in Bethlehem.
Louis A. DeNaples won a license for Poconos Mountain.
And in Pittsburgh, Detroit-based Casino developer Don H. Barden was awarded the sole slots license.
-A.C.
Las Vegas-based casiono operator Las Vegas Sands Corp. won a license for a casino in Bethlehem.
Louis A. DeNaples won a license for Poconos Mountain.
And in Pittsburgh, Detroit-based Casino developer Don H. Barden was awarded the sole slots license.
-A.C.
The losers...
TrumpStreet Casino (on the former Budd plant site in Nicetown); Riverwalk Casino (at Delaware Avenue and Spring Garden), and Pinnacle Entertainment (in Fishtown, at Beach Street and Schirra Ave).
Only two licenses could be awarded in Philadelphia, and they went to Foxwoods and SugarHouse.
More to come...
Only two licenses could be awarded in Philadelphia, and they went to Foxwoods and SugarHouse.
More to come...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
