vpFREE2 Forums

CT casino ecomomics

I am speculating that casino management may have no special animosity against VP players, but simple economics may dictating current moves by MS.

I believe the casinos pay the state of Connecticut 25% of their gross profit from machines.

Assume,for analysis purposes, that a PE machine yields 2% gross profit, considering less that optimum play and some short coin play. Also assume that the handle is $2,000 per hour, yielding $40 per hour gross profit.

As for expenses, I have assumed general overhead (facilities, insurance, personal, etc.) to be 1% of gross revenues and interest, depreciation and amortization of capital costs to be .5%.

I have assumed the followings costs directly associated with the play per hour: liquor- $1; attendants-$1; promotions (free play, etc.) - $3; lounge expence-2$. If .3% points were given, I have assumed a cost of .25% (value being less than $ for $ plus costs of administration.)

Thus the profit per hour of such play would be as follows:
Gross profit $40
Expenses:
State of CT $10
General overhead $20
Interest, etc. $10
Direct expenses $7
Points $5

Total Expenses $52
Net Profit (loss) ($12)

The above #s are based on estimates and speculation only, and are submitted for your correction and discussion purposes. I have not considered sources of profit associated with the play such as slot playing family and other facilities use. Nevertheless, the loss leader cost may too great in this theoretical example.

[If there are any management lurkers out there, feel free to email me with better numbers, I will respect your privacy.]

Here's a link to 2008 state tax rates on casinos:
http://www.noslots.com/CasinoTaxRatesbyState.html
Ct is in-line with many states.
However, except for Ct, the indian casinos are taxed at a very low rate. On the other hand Ct only gets a piece of slot machines; nothing from table games.
The R.I. tax on the VLT/racinos was 74.3%!

···

--- In vpFREE_NewEngland@yahoogroups.com, "David" <d_richheimer@...> wrote:

I am speculating that casino management may have no special animosity against VP players, but simple economics may dictating current moves by MS.

I believe the casinos pay the state of Connecticut 25% of their gross profit from machines.

Assume,for analysis purposes, that a PE machine yields 2% gross profit, considering less that optimum play and some short coin play. Also assume that the handle is $2,000 per hour, yielding $40 per hour gross profit.

As for expenses, I have assumed general overhead (facilities, insurance, personal, etc.) to be 1% of gross revenues and interest, depreciation and amortization of capital costs to be .5%.

I have assumed the followings costs directly associated with the play per hour: liquor- $1; attendants-$1; promotions (free play, etc.) - $3; lounge expence-2$. If .3% points were given, I have assumed a cost of .25% (value being less than $ for $ plus costs of administration.)

Thus the profit per hour of such play would be as follows:
Gross profit $40
Expenses:
State of CT $10
General overhead $20
Interest, etc. $10
Direct expenses $7
Points $5

Total Expenses $52
Net Profit (loss) ($12)

The above #s are based on estimates and speculation only, and are submitted for your correction and discussion purposes. I have not considered sources of profit associated with the play such as slot playing family and other facilities use. Nevertheless, the loss leader cost may too great in this theoretical example.

[If there are any management lurkers out there, feel free to email me with better numbers, I will respect your privacy.]

Nice, are you working for Mohegan Sun?

···

--- On Sun, 8/7/11, Dave <haaljo@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Dave <haaljo@yahoo.com>
Subject: [vpFREE_NewEngland] Re: CT casino ecomomics
To: vpFREE_NewEngland@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, August 7, 2011, 11:48 PM

Here's a link to 2008 state tax rates on casinos:
http://www.noslots.com/CasinoTaxRatesbyState.html
Ct is in-line with many states.
However, except for Ct, the indian casinos are taxed at a very low rate. On the other hand Ct only gets a piece of slot machines; nothing from table games.
The R.I. tax on the VLT/racinos was 74.3%!

--- In vpFREE_NewEngland@yahoogroups.com, "David" <d_richheimer@...> wrote:

I am speculating that casino management may have no special animosity against VP players, but simple economics may dictating current moves by MS.

I believe the casinos pay the state of Connecticut 25% of their gross profit from machines.

Assume,for analysis purposes, that a PE machine yields 2% gross profit, considering less that optimum play and some short coin play. Also assume that the handle is $2,000 per hour, yielding $40 per hour gross profit.

As for expenses, I have assumed general overhead (facilities, insurance, personal, etc.) to be 1% of gross revenues and interest, depreciation and amortization of capital costs to be .5%.

I have assumed the followings costs directly associated with the play per hour: liquor- $1; attendants-$1; promotions (free play, etc.) - $3; lounge expence-2$. If .3% points were given, I have assumed a cost of .25% (value being less than $ for $ plus costs of administration.)

Thus the profit per hour of such play would be as follows:
Gross profit $40
Expenses:
State of CT $10
General overhead $20
Interest, etc. $10
Direct expenses $7
Points $5

Total Expenses $52
Net Profit (loss) ($12)

The above #s are based on estimates and speculation only, and are submitted for your correction and discussion purposes. I have not considered sources of profit associated with the play such as slot playing family and other facilities use. Nevertheless, the loss leader cost may too great in this theoretical example.

[If there are any management lurkers out there, feel free to email me with better numbers, I will respect your privacy.]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I think David has a good point. I believe Mohegan has overreacted to a problem with pick-em. Specifically the $10 and up pick-em in high limit.
Pick-em is a 99.5% game. It is easy in 6-8 hours to put 270K through on these machines and earn 1000 points or 2000 points on double point days. Mean while your expected loss is $135. With this comes suites, shows, lounge access, fsp and high end gifts. On most machines on the bartops Mohegan has increased the payback schedule by a greater % than the value of the points they took away. 9/6 JOB in quarters, 9/6 DDB in .25 and $. The first semi playable deuces. I believe Mohegan will rethink their approach and reinstate points although it may be at a comparable level to FW at $300 a point.

Just my opinion and no I don't work for Mohegan.

Joel

···

________________________________
From: Michael Tan <mikeam7788@yahoo.com>
To: vpFREE_NewEngland@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, August 7, 2011 11:59 PM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE_NewEngland] Re: CT casino ecomomics

Nice, are you working for Mohegan Sun?

--- On Sun, 8/7/11, Dave <haaljo@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Dave <haaljo@yahoo.com>
Subject: [vpFREE_NewEngland] Re: CT casino ecomomics
To: vpFREE_NewEngland@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, August 7, 2011, 11:48 PM

Here's a link to 2008 state tax rates on casinos:
http://www.noslots.com/CasinoTaxRatesbyState.html
Ct is in-line with many states.
However, except for Ct, the indian casinos are taxed at a very low rate. On the other hand Ct only gets a piece of slot machines; nothing from table games.
The R.I. tax on the VLT/racinos was 74.3%!

--- In vpFREE_NewEngland@yahoogroups.com, "David" <d_richheimer@...> wrote:

I am speculating that casino management may have no special animosity against VP players, but simple economics may dictating current moves by MS.

I believe the casinos pay the state of Connecticut 25% of their gross profit from machines.

Assume,for analysis purposes, that a PE machine yields 2% gross profit, considering less that optimum play and some short coin play. Also assume that the handle is $2,000 per hour, yielding $40 per hour gross profit.

As for expenses, I have assumed general overhead (facilities, insurance, personal, etc.) to be 1% of gross revenues and interest, depreciation and amortization of capital costs to be .5%.

I have assumed the followings costs directly associated with the play per hour: liquor- $1; attendants-$1; promotions (free play, etc.) - $3; lounge expence-2$. If .3% points were given, I have assumed a cost of .25% (value being less than $ for $ plus costs of administration.)

Thus the profit per hour of such play would be as follows:
Gross profit $40
Expenses:
State of CT $10
General overhead $20
Interest, etc. $10
Direct expenses $7
Points $5

Total Expenses $52
Net Profit (loss) ($12)

The above #s are based on estimates and speculation only, and are submitted for your correction and discussion purposes. I have not considered sources of profit associated with the play such as slot playing family and other facilities use. Nevertheless, the loss leader cost may too great in this theoretical example.

[If there are any management lurkers out there, feel free to email me with better numbers, I will respect your privacy.]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Joel, just one typo; PE is 99.95% as your math notes. Other than that, very good "points" and if I only had the bankroll back in the day and also I don't work for Mohegan.
Dave

···

--- In vpFREE_NewEngland@yahoogroups.com, Joel Fink <joel0457@...> wrote:

I think David has a good point. I believe Mohegan has overreacted to a problem with pick-em. Specifically the $10 and up pick-em in high limit.
Pick-em is a 99.5% game. It is easy in 6-8 hours to put 270K through on these machines and earn 1000 points or 2000 points on double point days. Mean while your expected loss is $135. With this comes suites, shows, lounge access, fsp and high end gifts. On most machines on the bartops Mohegan has increased the payback schedule by a greater % than the value of the points they took away. 9/6 JOB in quarters, 9/6 DDB in .25 and $. The first semi playable deuces. I believe Mohegan will rethink their approach and reinstate points although it may be at a comparable level to FW at $300 a point.

Just my opinion and no I don't work for Mohegan.

Joel

________________________________
From: Michael Tan <mikeam7788@...>
To: vpFREE_NewEngland@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, August 7, 2011 11:59 PM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE_NewEngland] Re: CT casino ecomomics

Â
Nice, are you working for Mohegan Sun?

--- On Sun, 8/7/11, Dave <haaljo@...> wrote:

From: Dave <haaljo@...>
Subject: [vpFREE_NewEngland] Re: CT casino ecomomics
To: vpFREE_NewEngland@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, August 7, 2011, 11:48 PM

Â

Here's a link to 2008 state tax rates on casinos:
http://www.noslots.com/CasinoTaxRatesbyState.html
Ct is in-line with many states.
However, except for Ct, the indian casinos are taxed at a very low rate. On the other hand Ct only gets a piece of slot machines; nothing from table games.
The R.I. tax on the VLT/racinos was 74.3%!

--- In vpFREE_NewEngland@yahoogroups.com, "David" <d_richheimer@> wrote:
>
> I am speculating that casino management may have no special animosity against VP players, but simple economics may dictating current moves by MS.
>
> I believe the casinos pay the state of Connecticut 25% of their gross profit from machines.
>
> Assume,for analysis purposes, that a PE machine yields 2% gross profit, considering less that optimum play and some short coin play. Also assume that the handle is $2,000 per hour, yielding $40 per hour gross profit.
>
> As for expenses, I have assumed general overhead (facilities, insurance, personal, etc.) to be 1% of gross revenues and interest, depreciation and amortization of capital costs to be .5%.
>
> I have assumed the followings costs directly associated with the play per hour: liquor- $1; attendants-$1; promotions (free play, etc.) - $3; lounge expence-2$. If .3% points were given, I have assumed a cost of .25% (value being less than $ for $ plus costs of administration.)
>
> Thus the profit per hour of such play would be as follows:
> Gross profit $40
> Expenses:
> State of CT $10
> General overhead $20
> Interest, etc. $10
> Direct expenses $7
> Points $5
>
> Total Expenses $52
> Net Profit (loss) ($12)
>
> The above #s are based on estimates and speculation only, and are submitted for your correction and discussion purposes. I have not considered sources of profit associated with the play such as slot playing family and other facilities use. Nevertheless, the loss leader cost may too great in this theoretical example.
>
> [If there are any management lurkers out there, feel free to email me with better numbers, I will respect your privacy.]
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Tend to agree with you Joel, that MS will reinstate points at some level. Speaking to friends who were there yesterday, the play was light on no points machines, and several players on these machines were unaware of the stickers.

While my prior post tends to indicate fp VP may not be a profit center, as long as it more than covers variable costs, it would be unwise for MS to abandon it. They already have the casino space built with the associated overhead in place, and I doubt substituting additional slots or tables would increase marginal revenue. Certain VP business is moving to Foxwoods, and when MS sees the #s they will have an incentive to restore points or otherwise halt erosion of business. In the meantime, I plan to stay away, if only to help tip their hand.

I too take the pledge that I do not work or have worked for MS or any casino.

···

--- In vpFREE_NewEngland@yahoogroups.com, Joel Fink <joel0457@...> wrote:

I think David has a good point. I believe Mohegan has overreacted to a problem with pick-em. Specifically the $10 and up pick-em in high limit.
Pick-em is a 99.5% game. It is easy in 6-8 hours to put 270K through on these machines and earn 1000 points or 2000 points on double point days. Mean while your expected loss is $135. With this comes suites, shows, lounge access, fsp and high end gifts. On most machines on the bartops Mohegan has increased the payback schedule by a greater % than the value of the points they took away. 9/6 JOB in quarters, 9/6 DDB in .25 and $. The first semi playable deuces. I believe Mohegan will rethink their approach and reinstate points although it may be at a comparable level to FW at $300 a point.

Just my opinion and no I don't work for Mohegan.

Joel

 A friend of mine went to MS last night and noticed that many of the formerly 9/6 DDB had bee n down graded to 30 for the F/H in Quarters\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.He also said the bank in the Sky Casino right next to the Rock near Ginos was completely shut down\.\.Wow\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!     Rod
···

--- On Mon, 8/8/11, David <d_richheimer@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: David <d_richheimer@yahoo.com>
Subject: [vpFREE_NewEngland] Re: CT casino ecomomics
To: vpFREE_NewEngland@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, August 8, 2011, 8:19 PM

--- In vpFREE_NewEngland@yahoogroups.com, Joel Fink <joel0457@...> wrote:

I think David has a good point. I believe Mohegan has overreacted to a problem with pick-em. Specifically the $10 and up pick-em in high limit.
Pick-em is a 99.5% game. It is easy in 6-8 hours to put 270K through on these machines and earn 1000 points or 2000 points on double point days. Mean while your expected loss is $135. With this comes suites, shows, lounge access, fsp and high end gifts. On most machines on the bartops Mohegan has increased the payback schedule by a greater % than the value of the points they took away. 9/6 JOB in quarters, 9/6 DDB in .25 and $. The first semi playable deuces. I believe Mohegan will rethink their approach and reinstate points although it may be at a comparable level to FW at $300 a point.

Just my opinion and no I don't work for Mohegan.

Joel

Tend to agree with you Joel, that MS will reinstate points at some level. Speaking to friends who were there yesterday, the play was light on no points machines, and several players on these machines were unaware of the stickers.

While my prior post tends to indicate fp VP may not be a profit center, as long as it more than covers variable costs, it would be unwise for MS to abandon it. They already have the casino space built with the associated overhead in place, and I doubt substituting additional slots or tables would increase marginal revenue. Certain VP business is moving to Foxwoods, and when MS sees the #s they will have an incentive to restore points or otherwise halt erosion of business. In the meantime, I plan to stay away, if only to help tip their hand.

I too take the pledge that I do not work or have worked for MS or any casino.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I shudder to ask what you call "semi-playable". I hope it's not under 99%.
I agree that "points", in some manner, will come back...but only after all the PE get downgraded.

The first semi playable deuces. I believe Mohegan will rethink their approach and reinstate points although it may be at a comparable level to FW at $300 a point.

···

--- In vpFREE_NewEngland@yahoogroups.com, Joel Fink <joel0457@...> wrote:

Just my opinion and no I don't work for Mohegan.

Joel

________________________________
From: Michael Tan <mikeam7788@...>
To: vpFREE_NewEngland@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, August 7, 2011 11:59 PM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE_NewEngland] Re: CT casino ecomomics

Â
Nice, are you working for Mohegan Sun?

--- On Sun, 8/7/11, Dave <haaljo@...> wrote:

From: Dave <haaljo@...>
Subject: [vpFREE_NewEngland] Re: CT casino ecomomics
To: vpFREE_NewEngland@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, August 7, 2011, 11:48 PM

Â

Here's a link to 2008 state tax rates on casinos:
http://www.noslots.com/CasinoTaxRatesbyState.html
Ct is in-line with many states.
However, except for Ct, the indian casinos are taxed at a very low rate. On the other hand Ct only gets a piece of slot machines; nothing from table games.
The R.I. tax on the VLT/racinos was 74.3%!

--- In vpFREE_NewEngland@yahoogroups.com, "David" <d_richheimer@> wrote:
>
> I am speculating that casino management may have no special animosity against VP players, but simple economics may dictating current moves by MS.
>
> I believe the casinos pay the state of Connecticut 25% of their gross profit from machines.
>
> Assume,for analysis purposes, that a PE machine yields 2% gross profit, considering less that optimum play and some short coin play. Also assume that the handle is $2,000 per hour, yielding $40 per hour gross profit.
>
> As for expenses, I have assumed general overhead (facilities, insurance, personal, etc.) to be 1% of gross revenues and interest, depreciation and amortization of capital costs to be .5%.
>
> I have assumed the followings costs directly associated with the play per hour: liquor- $1; attendants-$1; promotions (free play, etc.) - $3; lounge expence-2$. If .3% points were given, I have assumed a cost of .25% (value being less than $ for $ plus costs of administration.)
>
> Thus the profit per hour of such play would be as follows:
> Gross profit $40
> Expenses:
> State of CT $10
> General overhead $20
> Interest, etc. $10
> Direct expenses $7
> Points $5
>
> Total Expenses $52
> Net Profit (loss) ($12)
>
> The above #s are based on estimates and speculation only, and are submitted for your correction and discussion purposes. I have not considered sources of profit associated with the play such as slot playing family and other facilities use. Nevertheless, the loss leader cost may too great in this theoretical example.
>
> [If there are any management lurkers out there, feel free to email me with better numbers, I will respect your privacy.]
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Well close, I believe it is 98.91%. I believe the pay table is 4000, 625, 375, 45, 20,20,15,10, 5. Not fp but a lot better than it was.

···

________________________________
From: mike <melbedewy1226@hotmail.com>
To: vpFREE_NewEngland@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 8, 2011 6:58 PM
Subject: [vpFREE_NewEngland] Re: CT casino ecomomics

I shudder to ask what you call "semi-playable". I hope it's not under 99%.
I agree that "points", in some manner, will come back...but only after all the PE get downgraded.

--- In vpFREE_NewEngland@yahoogroups.com, Joel Fink <joel0457@...> wrote:

The first semi playable deuces. I believe Mohegan will rethink their approach and reinstate points although it may be at a comparable level to FW at $300 a point.

Just my opinion and no I don't work for Mohegan.

Joel

________________________________
From: Michael Tan <mikeam7788@...>
To: vpFREE_NewEngland@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, August 7, 2011 11:59 PM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE_NewEngland] Re: CT casino ecomomics

Â
Nice, are you working for Mohegan Sun?

--- On Sun, 8/7/11, Dave <haaljo@...> wrote:

From: Dave <haaljo@...>
Subject: [vpFREE_NewEngland] Re: CT casino ecomomics
To: vpFREE_NewEngland@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, August 7, 2011, 11:48 PM

Â

Here's a link to 2008 state tax rates on casinos:
http://www.noslots.com/CasinoTaxRatesbyState.html
Ct is in-line with many states.
However, except for Ct, the indian casinos are taxed at a very low rate. On the other hand Ct only gets a piece of slot machines; nothing from table games.
The R.I. tax on the VLT/racinos was 74.3%!

--- In vpFREE_NewEngland@yahoogroups.com, "David" <d_richheimer@> wrote:
>
> I am speculating that casino management may have no special animosity against VP players, but simple economics may dictating current moves by MS.
>
> I believe the casinos pay the state of Connecticut 25% of their gross profit from machines.
>
> Assume,for analysis purposes, that a PE machine yields 2% gross profit, considering less that optimum play and some short coin play. Also assume that the handle is $2,000 per hour, yielding $40 per hour gross profit.
>
> As for expenses, I have assumed general overhead (facilities, insurance, personal, etc.) to be 1% of gross revenues and interest, depreciation and amortization of capital costs to be .5%.
>
> I have assumed the followings costs directly associated with the play per hour: liquor- $1; attendants-$1; promotions (free play, etc.) - $3; lounge expence-2$. If .3% points were given, I have assumed a cost of .25% (value being less than $ for $ plus costs of administration.)
>
> Thus the profit per hour of such play would be as follows:
> Gross profit $40
> Expenses:
> State of CT $10
> General overhead $20
> Interest, etc. $10
> Direct expenses $7
> Points $5
>
> Total Expenses $52
> Net Profit (loss) ($12)
>
> The above #s are based on estimates and speculation only, and are submitted for your correction and discussion purposes. I have not considered sources of profit associated with the play such as slot playing family and other facilities use. Nevertheless, the loss leader cost may too great in this theoretical example.
>
> [If there are any management lurkers out there, feel free to email me with better numbers, I will respect your privacy.]
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Playing these machines would be playing into the casinos new policies.

  LF

···

--- In vpFREE_NewEngland@yahoogroups.com, Joel Fink <joel0457@...> wrote:

Well close, I believe it is 98.91%. I believe the pay table is 4000, 625, 375, 45, 20,20,15,10, 5. Not fp but a lot better than it was.

I am not advocating playing them however on these specific machines Mohegan added 3% to the EV while taking away .66 in points.

···

________________________________
From: "lfcmja@verizon.net" <lfcmja@verizon.net>
To: vpFREE_NewEngland@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2011 10:57 AM
Subject: [vpFREE_NewEngland] Re: CT casino ecomomics

--- In vpFREE_NewEngland@yahoogroups.com, Joel Fink <joel0457@...> wrote:

Well close, I believe it is 98.91%. I believe the pay table is 4000, 625, 375, 45, 20,20,15,10, 5. Not fp but a lot better than it was.

Playing these machines would be playing into the casinos new policies.

LF

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yup, kinda ironic... But, typically the real game EV added will only be a fraction of the theoretical increase. That is, all players will make mistakes. MS prob has reasonable data here. Of course, points are not 1 for 1 either as not all points are redeemed, not all players use their card, errors happen, etc... All in all, we're kinda guessing on our part without hard numbers why they did what that did.

···

--- In vpFREE_NewEngland@yahoogroups.com, Joel Fink <joel0457@...> wrote:

I am not advocating playing them however on these specific machines Mohegan added 3% to the EV while taking away .66 in points.

For those of you interested in casino economics, the Wall Street Journal
reported today that Foxwoods was close to restructuring "more than $2
billion in debt that the tribe can no longer afford." Here is a shorter
version of the story via the Hartford Courant.

Foxwoods Close to Restructuring $2 Billion Debt, Wall Street Journal Reports

http://www.courant.com/business/hc-foxwoods-debt-restructuring-20110815,0,75
36852.story

According to the story some creditors might not take too much of a hit but
others could lose 65% of their original investment. Nice to know that
Foxwoods is doing the same to their big-boy lenders that they do to their
players. Perhaps Mohegan figured they may as well do the same.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 Couldn&#39;t happen to a better bunch of loosers\.\.\.\.Haven&#39;t been there in ten years because of the vp downgrades as well as the most awful management practices\.  I kept a comp balance of 2,000 at all times\.  If anyone was around in the old days you couldn&#39;t get a machine to play\!  They had it all\-\-huge crowds, no competition, full pay games and then they decided to get greedy\.  Now they are protected from chapter 11\.  They get the last laugh\.  Rod
···

--- On Mon, 8/15/11, Rio <riosgambling@optonline.net> wrote:

From: Rio <riosgambling@optonline.net>
Subject: [vpFREE_NewEngland] Foxwoods Close to Restructuring $2 Billion Debt
To: vpFREE_NewEngland@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, August 15, 2011, 11:39 PM

For those of you interested in casino economics, the Wall Street Journal
reported today that Foxwoods was close to restructuring "more than $2
billion in debt that the tribe can no longer afford." Here is a shorter
version of the story via the Hartford Courant.

Foxwoods Close to Restructuring $2 Billion Debt, Wall Street Journal Reports

http://www.courant.com/business/hc-foxwoods-debt-restructuring-20110815,0,75
36852.story

According to the story some creditors might not take too much of a hit but
others could lose 65% of their original investment. Nice to know that
Foxwoods is doing the same to their big-boy lenders that they do to their
players. Perhaps Mohegan figured they may as well do the same.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I had money in a junk bond fund that dabbled in casinos. They put money in the NO Harrah's slot joint many years ago. It was in a converted warehouse. Went belly-up; closed there doors. With a clean slate (and a monopoly license) Harrah's went all-in and built the NO casino.

Here's an article that may bring back memories of FW back in the day:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2338513/posts.
Some of the comments are interesting.
FW was quite the joint back in the advantage VP days. They blacklisted my wife from all offers. Wouldn't even let her in the lounge. That's after she won a slot tournament and they reviewed her "profitability." She wins a slot tournament at the LVHilton and they are all over her with offers to get her to come back. Go figure.

10 years ago FW had FP All American, PE and Double Joker with bennys.

···

--- In vpFREE_NewEngland@yahoogroups.com, Rio <riosgambling@...> wrote:

For those of you interested in casino economics, the Wall Street Journal
reported today that Foxwoods was close to restructuring "more than $2
billion in debt that the tribe can no longer afford." Here is a shorter
version of the story via the Hartford Courant.

Foxwoods Close to Restructuring $2 Billion Debt, Wall Street Journal Reports

http://www.courant.com/business/hc-foxwoods-debt-restructuring-20110815,0,75
36852.story

According to the story some creditors might not take too much of a hit but
others could lose 65% of their original investment. Nice to know that
Foxwoods is doing the same to their big-boy lenders that they do to their
players. Perhaps Mohegan figured they may as well do the same.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Damn, that article isn't coming up. Any chance of emailing it to me?

···

--- In vpFREE_NewEngland@yahoogroups.com, "Dave" <haaljo@...> wrote:

I had money in a junk bond fund that dabbled in casinos. They put money in the NO Harrah's slot joint many years ago. It was in a converted warehouse. Went belly-up; closed there doors. With a clean slate (and a monopoly license) Harrah's went all-in and built the NO casino.

Here's an article that may bring back memories of FW back in the day:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2338513/posts.
Some of the comments are interesting.
FW was quite the joint back in the advantage VP days. They blacklisted my wife from all offers. Wouldn't even let her in the lounge. That's after she won a slot tournament and they reviewed her "profitability." She wins a slot tournament at the LVHilton and they are all over her with offers to get her to come back. Go figure.

10 years ago FW had FP All American, PE and Double Joker with bennys.

--- In vpFREE_NewEngland@yahoogroups.com, Rio <riosgambling@> wrote:
>
> For those of you interested in casino economics, the Wall Street Journal
> reported today that Foxwoods was close to restructuring "more than $2
> billion in debt that the tribe can no longer afford." Here is a shorter
> version of the story via the Hartford Courant.
>
>
>
> Foxwoods Close to Restructuring $2 Billion Debt, Wall Street Journal Reports
>
> http://www.courant.com/business/hc-foxwoods-debt-restructuring-20110815,0,75
> 36852.story
>
>
>
> According to the story some creditors might not take too much of a hit but
> others could lose 65% of their original investment. Nice to know that
> Foxwoods is doing the same to their big-boy lenders that they do to their
> players. Perhaps Mohegan figured they may as well do the same.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>