After moving with extreme deliberation on terrestrial casinos, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission suddenly has a fire under its butt to do something about Internet gambling. “The time is now … We can’t wait any longer, even though we’re still in the middle of [casino] licensing,” said MGC Chairman Stephen Crosby. Somewhat nonsensically, Crosby coupled those remarks with the admonition that “it’s only appropriate that [casino operators] be at the table when we figure out what do with Internet gaming.’’
At the pace with which the MGC is choosing resort-casino operators that could be a very long time. ‘‘We don’t want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg on the state lottery and the new goose that is hopefully going to lay some golden eggs in the coming years, the slots parlor and casinos,’’ responded state Senate Majority Leader Stanley Rosenberg (D). But even he conceded, “I personally don’t see how you avoid it. You can’t control the Internet.”
International Game Technology and Bally Technology were on hand to lobby the MGC, as were representatives from all states where i-gaming is legal. Of course, the prudes got their panties in a wad over the proposal. “There’s no shovel in the ground yet to build the casinos or slots parlors, but already we’re talking about expansions of casino gambling,” shrieked casino opponent John Ribeiro. “Instead of having honest debate about tax revenue and economic development, we’re just going to allow these charlatans to open up casinos not just in our communities, but in every living room, every office, every door room in the state. We need to stop the bleeding.”
Elsewhere in the state, Penn National Gaming isn’t letting Ribeiro intimidate it. The company is proceeding apace with its Plainridge Park Casino project, although that consists mostly of paperwork right now. Penn is even prepared to eat the cost of the land should anti-casino forces repeal Massachusetts‘ casino-enabled status in a November vote. Said Penn CFO Saul Reibstein, “We made a commitment to the Gaming Commission that we were ready to go immediately upon awarding of the license, and we intend to fulfill that commitment.”
In emulation of Penn’s recent REIT conversion, Elliott Associates is expected to start applying similar pressure to Boyd Gaming. However, doing so would require the Boyd family to dissipate its 30% stake in the company. If you enjoy the customer service at a Boyd Gaming facility, Elliott’s commitment to ‘boost shareholder value’ ought to sound an ominous note. The fund and its affiliates own 5% of Boyd directly and ‘have economic exposure’ to 2% more.
Boyd doesn’t seem to be taking the Elliott threat too seriously, though. “We always appreciate new investments in the company,” said Boyd spokesman David Strow, dryly.
