Moderators: peeker643, swerb, Ziner
by swerb » Wed Sep 16, 2009 8:34 am
by pup » Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:52 am
by dem425 » Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:34 am
by FUDU » Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:39 pm
by swerb » Wed Sep 16, 2009 1:18 pm
dem425 wrote:It's been said that the "Corporate Conglomerate" ruined Las Vegas. Discretionary comps were no longer as prevalent as they were in the days when individuals (read:mob) owned the casinos.......
That being said, I enthusiastically support Gilbert and his intentions. The primary reason is that EVERYTHING the state of Ohio touches, endorses or supports turns to shit in a matter of years. They are incredibly poor managers and they are only adept at promoting their own bullshit bureacracy. Why are their school systems in financial distress in Ohio when we have the LOTTERY?
Gilbert infused the downtown by creating a viable product: the Cavs. He knows how to make money. Memo to State of Ohio: Sit back, shut your hole and allow people that know how to run Casinos (Penn Gaming) to do so and you (actually the local cities) can collect your 33% for staying the hell out!!!!!
One of the downsides is that this maybe too little too late to cash in on the casino craze. Another downside is that three casinos has not helped Detroit. Here's hoping that Gilbert (Detroit alumni) has taken some insurance and learned from their mistakes.
BTW, when Harrah's took over Windsor and made it a Caesar's, it gave a shot in the arm to a fledgling casino.
by FUDU » Wed Sep 16, 2009 1:23 pm
And make it so people like my wife will want to go, tied in with a Cavs game or some dinner and drinks.
by Cease » Wed Sep 16, 2009 1:52 pm

by Cerebral_DownTime » Wed Sep 16, 2009 4:16 pm
51% among all 88 counties in proportion to such counties’ respective populations. Half of each county’s distribution will go to its largest city if that city’s population is above 80,000.
34% among all public school districts
5% among all host cities
3% to the Ohio casino control commission
3% to the Ohio state racing commission fund
2% to a state law enforcement training fund
2% to a state problem gambling and addictions fund
by Ziner » Wed Sep 16, 2009 5:11 pm
Cerebral_DownTime wrote:34% among all public school districts
- 34%? Really? Doesn't the public school system make a killing off the Lottery? They're still run like shit. That's part of the problem, people think if you throw money at it they will be fixed.
by skatingtripods » Wed Sep 16, 2009 5:47 pm
51% among all 88 counties in proportion to such counties’ respective populations. Half of each county’s distribution will go to its largest city if that city’s population is above 80,000.
- This makes no sense. So if a city of 50,000 people votes yes, and a city of 85,000 people vote no, and they're in the same county, The bulk of it goes to the city that voted no? Great idea!
34% among all public school districts
- 34%? Really? Doesn't the public school system make a killing off the Lottery? They're still run like shit. That's part of the problem, people think if you throw money at it they will be fixed.
3% to the Ohio casino control commission
-So....... The people who are supposed to regulate the casinos will profit from them? Maybe i'm missing something here, but that seems stupid.
3% to the Ohio state racing commission fund
-What? Who are these assholes and why do they get 3%?
2% to a state problem gambling and addictions fund
-This is a nice touch. Very funny.
Maybe this Issue is a pile of shit? I guess I support it, but this is the best tax structure they can come up with?
by statmasta » Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:12 am
Cease wrote:I voted against the prior attempts to pass gaming, but will vote for this one.
I have always been anti-gaming in Ohio. It's a simple tax on stupid and/or poor people, much like the lottery or cig & alcohol taxes (I'm not judging, for I am one of these stupid people), and I don't think it morally justified. Rest assured, many Northeast Ohioans will gamble their lives away, and I don't want to see that.
I would be happy to coast as a non-gaming state, but now with every surronding state offering a casino expereince, my moral high ground has given way to pragmatism and I am ready for us to concede to gaming in the interest of economic development, entertainment, and employment opportunties.
As for this being too little, too late... it's never too late to fix a hole in your roof- or a hole in your state's economy. Yes, we could have moved on this 10 years ago, but the costs between then and now are sunk and therefore irrelevant to this decision.
by FUDU » Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:58 am
Cease wrote:I voted against the prior attempts to pass gaming, but will vote for this one.
I have always been anti-gaming in Ohio. It's a simple tax on stupid and/or poor people, much like the lottery or cig & alcohol taxes (I'm not judging, for I am one of these stupid people), and I don't think it morally justified. Rest assured, many Northeast Ohioans will gamble their lives away, and I don't want to see that.
I would be happy to coast as a non-gaming state, but now with every surronding state offering a casino expereince, my moral high ground has given way to pragmatism and I am ready for us to concede to gaming in the interest of economic development, entertainment, and employment opportunties.
As for this being too little, too late... it's never too late to fix a hole in your roof- or a hole in your state's economy. Yes, we could have moved on this 10 years ago, but the costs between then and now are sunk and therefore irrelevant to this decision.
by Cease » Thu Sep 17, 2009 1:26 am
statmasta wrote:Cease wrote:I voted against the prior attempts to pass gaming, but will vote for this one.
I have always been anti-gaming in Ohio. It's a simple tax on stupid and/or poor people, much like the lottery or cig & alcohol taxes (I'm not judging, for I am one of these stupid people), and I don't think it morally justified. Rest assured, many Northeast Ohioans will gamble their lives away, and I don't want to see that.
I would be happy to coast as a non-gaming state, but now with every surronding state offering a casino expereince, my moral high ground has given way to pragmatism and I am ready for us to concede to gaming in the interest of economic development, entertainment, and employment opportunties.
As for this being too little, too late... it's never too late to fix a hole in your roof- or a hole in your state's economy. Yes, we could have moved on this 10 years ago, but the costs between then and now are sunk and therefore irrelevant to this decision.
Who are you to let your morals get in the way of economic development in the first place?
And if someone wants to waste their money at a casino, that's their problem. That's not something for you to worry about. It's none of your business.

by jfiling » Thu Sep 17, 2009 1:41 am
Cease wrote:Now, whether you see gambling or prostitution or dog fighting as immoral is a whole other discussion. The fact is that morals do exist and we as a collective do base our laws on them.
One more thing, if it's on my ballot- it's my business.
by Cease » Thu Sep 17, 2009 1:50 am
FUDU wrote:How is a tax on alcohol a tax on stupid/poor people when there are plenty of smart people that drink alcohol?

by Stu » Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:17 am
Gilbert, who has made a fortune in the mortgage lending business, said his potential venture into the gambling industry is mostly about helping downtown Cleveland revitalize and become a catalyst for economic recovery in the Midwest. The key, he said, is to tie all the entertainment options together -- a casino near professional sports and surrounded by restaurants and bars.
by Stu » Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:23 am
by swerb » Thu Sep 17, 2009 1:01 pm
Stu wrote:Gilbert, who has made a fortune in the mortgage lending business, said his potential venture into the gambling industry is mostly about helping downtown Cleveland revitalize and become a catalyst for economic recovery in the Midwest. The key, he said, is to tie all the entertainment options together -- a casino near professional sports and surrounded by restaurants and bars.
he said something similar when he was interview on Wills and Snyder on WTAM Wednesday morning. Talking about how businesses need to move into Cleveland and the people will come. That was the ticket to revitalizing downtown.
Of course, he built his practice facility for the Cavs in Independence.
by Stu » Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:07 pm
by Ziner » Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:14 pm
Stu wrote: then why not lead by example by having his facilities downtown?



by Stu » Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:16 pm
by Stu » Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:20 pm
Swerb wrote:Gilbert brought a big Quicken mortgage center to Cleveland. He's trying to bring a casino and other entertainment venues to the city.
by skatingtripods » Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:22 pm
Stu wrote:look im not an idiot. i know how to read a map and see that independence is almost halfway between cleveburg and bath.
im just saying, he's saying this bullshit in order to sell his casino idea. he doesnt care about revitalizing cleveland, he cares about making money. and thats fine. im perfectly ok with that. him making money is a result of success in cleveland. i just dont like that he's doing it via a monopoly.
by swerb » Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:23 pm
Stu wrote:and my bigger issue on topic, the actual reason that im voting against this, is that its bullshit that he would have a monopoly on ohio casinos.
by Stu » Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:35 pm
Swerb wrote:Stu wrote:But more than two in NE OH is prolly not realistic given the market. And what's two gonna do? You really think it would make that much of a difference? You think one competing casino is going to force the initial one to pay out 98% on slots, have single 0 roulette wheels, and the place loaded with blackjack and craps tables at the minimum house advantage?
NFW
by Stu » Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:36 pm
Swerb wrote:If I'm starving, and someone offers me a hot dog, I'm not turning it down and waiting for a competing company to offer me an all beef footlong hot dog. The city and region is starving.
by Stu » Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:39 pm
Skating Tripods wrote:It may be a monopoly, but there are multiple investors involved. Penn National Gaming for the most part, but other private investors who are expected to match so much money.
Skating Tripods wrote:If you're going to spend this kind of money and put forth this kind of effort, it's excusable that it will create a monopoly.
by swerb » Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:45 pm
Stu wrote:Swerb wrote:Stu wrote:But more than two in NE OH is prolly not realistic given the market. And what's two gonna do? You really think it would make that much of a difference? You think one competing casino is going to force the initial one to pay out 98% on slots, have single 0 roulette wheels, and the place loaded with blackjack and craps tables at the minimum house advantage?
NFW
when you go to a casino, you aren't just spending money on the gambling. its about the restaurants, the food, the drinks, the cocktail waitresses (hey-o), and all the entertainment that comes with it.
competition will breed improvements in all areas of the casino, not just the gaming. look at vegas. look at how many people go to the rio cuz they have the free show in the sky. look at the people that go to the flamingo cuz of their pool. how about the wynn just because of its overall classiness.
oh and as far as improving gaming is concerned, you'll not only see better payouts (the table games you mentioned), but you might also see a greater variety of games.
by Stu » Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:47 pm
Issue 3 calls for a fee of $50 million per casino. A casino planned for Illinois will bring a fee of more than $400 million. State officials in Massachusetts may ask $500 million each for two casinos being discussed there. And in 2007, two Indiana racetracks coughed up a casino licensing fee of $250 million each.
by swerb » Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:48 pm
Stu wrote:Swerb wrote:If I'm starving, and someone offers me a hot dog, I'm not turning it down and waiting for a competing company to offer me an all beef footlong hot dog. The city and region is starving.
How'd that work for Detroit?
by swerb » Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:53 pm
Stu wrote:and lets not forget the bullshit 50 million dollar licensing fee per casino.
this article sheds some light on how that is a ripoff for the state: http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindeal ... xml&coll=2Issue 3 calls for a fee of $50 million per casino. A casino planned for Illinois will bring a fee of more than $400 million. State officials in Massachusetts may ask $500 million each for two casinos being discussed there. And in 2007, two Indiana racetracks coughed up a casino licensing fee of $250 million each.
for you guys that want gambling, why can't we just come up with a tax plan, come up with a flat rate licensing fee per casino, and legalize gaming to allow private industry to come in and build their casinos. it allows for competition and growth, it would generate more money, and would bring in more entertainment options overall.
by Stu » Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:53 pm
Swerb wrote:Agreed.
And I repeat my questions. You think the region could support more than two full blown casinos?
Swerb wrote:If not, you think two Cleveland casinos would make much of a difference in the areas you mentioned? I don't think it would make much of any. At least not enough of a difference to use the "no competition allowed" argument as your sole factor for being against the casino issue.
by Stu » Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:56 pm
Swerb wrote:Also, the city of Cleveland does not need 5 or 6 casinos. They need one or two nice ones, done right. It would generate mass amounts of tax dollars, bring many more people downtown on weekend nights, and be a huge asset in luring conventions business.
by swerb » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:04 pm
Stu wrote:Swerb wrote:Also, the city of Cleveland does not need 5 or 6 casinos. They need one or two nice ones, done right. It would generate mass amounts of tax dollars, bring many more people downtown on weekend nights, and be a huge asset in luring conventions business.
first, you'll never allow it to see 2, its only gonna see 1 with this plan.
second, by having a huge licensing fee, in the hundreds of millions of dollars, you insure that only real players are going to come to town so they can get their return on their investment.
with a 4-500 million dollar licensing fee, you also aren't going to have 5-6 casinos come into town, unless theres enough growth to warrant it. and if theres the growth to warrant it, then whats the problem?
by docstank » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:05 pm
by Stu » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:08 pm
docstank wrote:Is STU short for Jeff Jacobs?
by Stu » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:10 pm
Swerb wrote:It's a moot point. We all know this is nothing the state politicians would pass. Obviously. The state has never even been close on passing a law that would legalize casino gambling in Ohio. They sure as shit aren't going to pass one that would open it up for any Tom, Dick, or Harry with cash to come in here and open a casino.
by docstank » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:13 pm
by leadpipe » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:13 pm
Swerb wrote:Stu wrote:Swerb wrote:Stu wrote:But more than two in NE OH is prolly not realistic given the market. And what's two gonna do? You really think it would make that much of a difference? You think one competing casino is going to force the initial one to pay out 98% on slots, have single 0 roulette wheels, and the place loaded with blackjack and craps tables at the minimum house advantage?
NFW
when you go to a casino, you aren't just spending money on the gambling. its about the restaurants, the food, the drinks, the cocktail waitresses (hey-o), and all the entertainment that comes with it.
competition will breed improvements in all areas of the casino, not just the gaming. look at vegas. look at how many people go to the rio cuz they have the free show in the sky. look at the people that go to the flamingo cuz of their pool. how about the wynn just because of its overall classiness.
oh and as far as improving gaming is concerned, you'll not only see better payouts (the table games you mentioned), but you might also see a greater variety of games.
Agreed.
And I repeat my questions. You think the region could support more than two full blown casinos? If not, you think two Cleveland casinos would make much of a difference in the areas you mentioned? I don't think it would make much of any. At least not enough of a difference to use the "no competition allowed" argument as your sole factor for being against the casino issue.
And using a Vegas comp is silly. There's tens and tens of mega-casinos all on the same street. Of course they need to compete. And even the least trafficked ones generate much more revenue than any here will.
by swerb » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:15 pm
Stu wrote:Swerb wrote:It's a moot point. We all know this is nothing the state politicians would pass. Obviously. The state has never even been close on passing a law that would legalize casino gambling in Ohio. They sure as shit aren't going to pass one that would open it up for any Tom, Dick, or Harry with cash to come in here and open a casino.
Seriously. Just like we'd never see slot machines in ohio.
by Stu » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:16 pm
Lead Pipe wrote:YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE.
by docstank » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:18 pm
by leadpipe » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:21 pm
Stu wrote:Lead Pipe wrote:YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE.
You lose future opportunity to allow other Casino's into town, especially if Gilbert's sucks.
by Stu » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:33 pm
Swerb wrote:Stu wrote:Swerb wrote:It's a moot point. We all know this is nothing the state politicians would pass. Obviously. The state has never even been close on passing a law that would legalize casino gambling in Ohio. They sure as shit aren't going to pass one that would open it up for any Tom, Dick, or Harry with cash to come in here and open a casino.
Seriously. Just like we'd never see slot machines in ohio.
Putting slot machines at the handful of horse racing venues in the state, and legalizing casino gambling statewide ... uhh, two slightly different issues.
Goes without saying, but maybe not.
Strickland didn't even have to take the slot thing through the Ohio house.
by Stu » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:34 pm
Lead Pipe wrote:Stu wrote:Lead Pipe wrote:YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE.
You lose future opportunity to allow other Casino's into town, especially if Gilbert's sucks.
This is what you aren't getting.
The next proposal is going to be exactly the same in regards to your monopoly worries.
I think this is crystal clear.
If that is understood, than you have nothing to lose.
by swerb » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:37 pm
Stu wrote:Swerb wrote:Stu wrote:Swerb wrote:It's a moot point. We all know this is nothing the state politicians would pass. Obviously. The state has never even been close on passing a law that would legalize casino gambling in Ohio. They sure as shit aren't going to pass one that would open it up for any Tom, Dick, or Harry with cash to come in here and open a casino.
Seriously. Just like we'd never see slot machines in ohio.
Putting slot machines at the handful of horse racing venues in the state, and legalizing casino gambling statewide ... uhh, two slightly different issues.
Goes without saying, but maybe not.
Strickland didn't even have to take the slot thing through the Ohio house.
They are similar in that they are both things that we would never expect out Ohio government to allow.
by Stu » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:38 pm
docstank wrote:I would agree with "let them both build their casinos" but the problem is Jacobs is an "idea" gilbert's is a reality. Jacobs has not plan to build a thing, he is just playing some misdirection in order to block Gilbert's very real possible threat to Jacobs out of state casino revenue which is 70% dependent on OHIOans.
by Stu » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:40 pm
Swerb wrote:Stu wrote:They are similar in that they are both things that we would never expect out Ohio government to allow.
Actually, they're not similar at all.
by swerb » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:47 pm
Stu wrote:Swerb wrote:They are similar in that they are both things that we would never expect out Ohio government to allow.
Actually, they're not similar at all.
Stu wrote:oh so you 2 years ago you knew that it was a strong possibility that they would allow slot machines in the race tracks? even when the legislature and strickland were saying it would never happen? thats some awesome insight tig--i mean swerb.

by Orenthal » Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:21 pm
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
