Carl Icahn, Stephen Sweeney Go At It Over Atlantic City’s Gambling Future

Carl Icahn accuses New Jersey State Senate President Stephen Sweeney of selling out Atlantic City by supporting a north Jersey casino.

Business mogul Carl Icahn and New Jersey State Senate President Stephen Sweeney exchanged harsh terms final Friday, with each accusing the other of selling out some portion of Atlantic City for their own gain. The war of words started after Sweeney participated in protests with union employees from the Trump Taj Mahal, protests of which Icahn proved to be a major target.

Those protests were designed to fight back against a Trump Entertainment plan to break out of a contract and cut pensions and benefits for workers in order to cut costs and keep the casino open as we reported earlier this week.

The organization says that the casino will have to close on November 13 unless numerous concessions are granted to it, including the cutbacks in employee benefits and $25 million in help from their state, along side heart of vegas slots casino – free slot games a reduced income tax assessment.

Workers Blame Icahn

But Icahn turned out to be a major figure in the protests. The protesters demonstrated near the Tropicana, which is owned by a group led by Icahn, and numerous see him as the threat that is true the advantages and wages made available from their current positions. In bankruptcy court, Trump Entertainment has requested permission to turn its venue over to Icahn by transforming the financial obligation he holds in the company into ownership of the casino. Icahn says he would then be willing to spend another $100 million in to the Taj Mahal, but as long as his concessions are provided.

Sweeney reacted to this by saying that there had been no method the state would contribute to the proposed transfer to Icahn, and sharply criticized the investor’s plan for the casino.

‘If he doesn’t get every thing he wants, he’s closing anyway,’ Sweeney stated. ‘But then he will invest in the property. if he can get all this cash from the taxpayers and the workers,’

Sweeney had been just one single of a few politicians from both major parties whom criticized Icahn’s proposal at a Boardwalk press conference.

‘You get nothing you treat workers with respect and dignity,’ Sweeney said from us until.

Icahn Fires Back

But Icahn was prepared to fire straight back at Sweeney and other state officials that have criticized him while also proposing that casinos be built in north Jersey.

‘Sweeney is selling out Atlantic City to New that is northern Jersey the one hand, and now he’s telling all these workers in Atlantic City that Carl Icahn is to blame, when I’m the only one that took a risk with $80 million when no body else would,’ Icahn said. ‘ On the one hand, we have been to think Senator Sweeney is Atlantic City’s staunchest defender, yet having said that, the exact same Senator Sweeney is down in north Jersey making plans allowing gaming outside of New York City, a concession which will suggest the end of gaming in Atlantic City.’

Sweeney seems in United States District Court on this week so that they can get a judge to force the concessions he’s asked for, since the state and Atlantic City have so far rejected his terms.

Trump Entertainment normally hoping that a Delaware bankruptcy court will allow it to end the union contract that is current. The company is accusing the workers’ union of compromising 3,000 jobs at the Taj Mahal in an attempt to safeguard workers at other casinos, as under the union contract, any concessions won at one casino would be allowed at all other Atlantic City casinos too.

UK Gambling Act Challenge by GBGA Snuffed by London High Court

London’s High Court ruled against a GBGA challenge towards the new UK Gambling Act, and can be implemented month that is next. (Image:

The UK Gambling Act goes into effect next month after a challenge from the Gibraltar Betting and Gaming Association (GBGA) was rejected by the High Court the other day. The challenge that is legal currently been successful in delaying the execution of the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act from October 1 to November 1, but the ruling implies that the legislation will be enforced as anticipated.

‘I am associated with the conclusion that parliament was well within its rights to act as it did,’ said Lord Justice Nicholas Green.

GBGA Fails to Make Its Situation

In his ruling, Green said that the GBGA failed showing that the regulations that are new be illegal beneath the laws of either the UK or europe. He also rejected a plan that is alternate by the GBGA, a so-called ‘passporting’ plan, that could allow the GBGA to maintain complete licensing control over its operators while agreeing to share data with all the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC).

The ruling means that all gambling that is online who wish to conduct business with clients in the uk will have to hold a permit with the gambling commission there by November 1. This won’t be a challenge for most companies that wanted to stay in the country, as most believed they would want to utilize for a license by 1 october.

The genuine changes will come into play on December 1. That is whenever a brand new point-of-consumption tax will be implemented in the UK on licensed operators. This will imply that all operators will probably pay a 15 % taxation on their revenues derived from British customers, regardless of where they are headquartered or what taxes they might pay in their house nations.

GBGA Still Has Concerns

The UKGC had been happy with the decision, since the organization not just beat straight back the challenge, but ended up being awarded £100,000 ($159,400) to pay for its appropriate costs.

‘We welcome this judgment and certainly will now complete preparations for utilization of the Act on 1 November,’ the UKGC had written in a declaration.

Conversely, the GBGA expressed the court to its disappointment’s decision.

‘ Cross-border regimes that are regulatory significant co-ordination and co-operation on key appropriate and regulatory issues and the united kingdom already had this with all the Gibraltar industry, regulator and jurisdiction,’ the GBGA said after the ruling. ‘ We keep this law isn’t within the most readily useful interests of customers, the industry and the regulator itself and that there are more effective ways of dealing with the challenges of regulation and competition in this sector.’

The GBGA also said that it may be time for European officials to show up with an overarching framework for online gambling.

‘We remain concerned great britain regulator will see it tough to hold organizations to account in jurisdictions outside of the EU where it does not have any appropriate powers and common framework that is legal culture,’ the Association statement stated. ‘Given this judgment there is now even greater significance of an EU framework that is legal online gambling if we have been to effectively protect all European consumers, enjoy a common market and avoid each member state deciding alone dealing with an activity that naturally crosses borders.’

The new licensing regime will also require operators to give a legal rationale for their operations in gray markets where they cannot hold licenses. These requirements have led some operators to select not to ever apply for a UK license, although the majority of major companies want to remain in great britain market.

From Here to Eternity: The Massachusetts Casino Journey

The Wynn Resorts casino proposal in Everett is the most current to win a permit from the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. (Image: Wynn Resorts Holdings)

Massachusetts casino certification law is back in the news headlines in a big way this week, as the Wynn Everett task won the Greater Boston casino permit following a contentious battle against a Mohegan Sun proposal. That decision, that was reached by the Massachusetts Gaming Commission in a vote that is 3-1 sets the phase for Steve Wynn to construct his big resort in Everett, on the site of the former Monsanto plant regarding the outskirts of Boston.

But it’s additionally the culmination in excess of three years of guidelines, votes, debates and referendums, all of which combine to write the whole tale of Massachusetts’ casino gambling legislation. If you’re unfamiliar with what are you doing in the state, here’s a recap that is quick of you need to get right up to speed.

How It All Started

On November 22, 2011, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick signed the Gaming that is expanded Act. This bill allowed for four brand new gambling facilities to be built into the state: three casinos and one slots parlor. Every one of the three casino licenses was associated with a region that is specific one for Western Massachusetts, one for the Greater Boston area, and one for Southeastern Massachusetts. The slots parlor could be built anywhere in the state.

Designers who wanted to apply for just one of the four licenses were needed to get via an extensive application process, one that included mandatory referendums by local communities where casino proposals were made.

Those referendums ended up being a part that is critical of licensing process, as several promising projects did not earn the approval of voters. Most notably, a plan for the casino at Suffolk Downs in East Boston was scuttled when votes overwhelmingly rejected the proposal, which sooner or later led to that plan being resurrected on the Revere side of the Suffolk Downs racetrack.

Ultimately, the decision of whether to award licenses and to whom they should go was determined by the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, a five-member panel that oversaw the entire licensing procedure.

And the Award Goes To…

The first license was awarded to Penn National Gaming, which earned the right to build a slots parlor in Plainville in late February. That plan had been plumped for over a Massachusetts Live! proposal in Leominster and a Raynham Park option that did not prove popular with the payment. Fundamentally, the payment voted 3-2 in favor of the Penn National plan over the Leominster alternative.

In June, the commission then approved MGM Resorts International for the Western Massachusetts casino license. The commission voted unanimously and only awarding the license towards the proposed MGM resort in Springfield, which emerged since the only contender in the region.

This the gaming commission also awarded the Greater Boston casino license to a Wynn Resorts project in Everett week. The Wynn plan had been selected over a Mohegan Sun proposal in Revere by a 3-1 vote, with gaming payment Chairman Stephen Crosby recusing himself from the process.

Southeastern Massachusetts License Still to Be Decided

So far, few severe contenders have emerged for the Southeastern Massachusetts casino license, which caused the gaming commission to rebel the deadline for applications from September 30, 2014 to December 1 of this year. The location’s timeline had been behind the rest of the state because of the possibility that the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe might develop a casino in Taunton. Whenever that effort felt through, the location was opened to designers.

So far, only KG Urban has applied to create in the area, although the commission believes that other candidates whom were rejected in one other two elements of the continuing state may decide to try once again in Southeastern Massachusetts.

Casino Law Repeal Nevertheless a chance

There is still the opportunity that each of these venues may never open. There is significant opposition to enabling casinos in Massachusetts since the law was first signed, and which has culminated in casino opponents obtaining a question on a statewide ballot this November that may ask voters if they wish to repeal the casino law. Present polling shows that such a repeal is unlikely, however: one September that is early poll UMass Lowell/7News found that 59 % of likely voters planed to vote against the repeal effort, with only 36 percent saying they would vote to repeal the law.



电子邮件地址不会被公开。 必填项已用 * 标注

您可以使用这些 HTML 标签和属性: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>