SLS: What’s in a name?

Quite a lot, from the looks of things. Back in 2014, then-U.S. Sen. Harry Reid (D) prophesied that, in a few years, nobody would be talking about the Sahara anymore; they’d all be talking about SLS Las Vegas. Guess not, Old Sixty Votes. Early reports posit that new owner Meruelo Group wants to bring the Sahara name back. The operative question may be whether Sammy Boy Entertainment still owns the rights to it. (In the waning days of the Sahara, a small “sbe” was insinuated into the Sahara logo.) If the name is out there, waiting to be had, then SLS/Sahara goes from a casino with crummy brand equity to one with real cachet. Too bad Meruelo can’t do anything about the puny (50,000 square feet) casino but you’ve got to start somewhere.

The Sahara-into-SLS-into-Sahara (maybe) progression inspires us to a few thoughts. One is that Sam Nazarian obviously had too much confidence in the equity of a brand that has no meaning, simply dreamt up because he thought the letters looked good together — this is literally true. At least Sahara had meaning, mostly positive, for the Las Vegas customer. And let’s not be too hard on Nazarian. His folly was exceeded by that of James Packer, who was prepared to stake the future of a Vegas mega resort on a made-up word (Alon) that his customers would have been hard-put to pronounce, never mind remember.

Steve Wynn gets this stuff down pat. Wynn Las Vegas leveraged the cachet of his name, arguably the best brand in gaming. Encore (i.e., more of the same) and Wynn Paradise Park (also self-explanatory) ring changes on the theme. We strongly hope that Meruelo Group can restore the Sahara handle to its new casino. Speaking of handles, Nazarian had the good sense to save all the ‘S’ handles from the old casino-hotel, so Meruelo would be S-tarting from the right place.

* By coming out in favor of preserving Connecticut‘s current revenue stream from tribal casinos, Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) may have tipped the scales in the state House of Representatives in favor of a satellite casino jointly operated by Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods Resort Casino. However, nothing remains certain in the Nutmeg State, even though the state Senate passed the bill by a 2-to-1 majority. Those in the minority included Sen. Michael McLachlan, who queried, “When are we going to stop chasing easy money like this? Our monopoly is gone. The whole dynamics of casino gambling and royalty payments to the state of Connecticut are gone … If we’re going to approve one in East Windsor, I hope you’re not going to come back in three or four or five years and say, ‘We need one in Danbury.’” The East Windsor townsmen are getting their oar in, too, voting to approve a formal referendum on the casino, one more obstacle in the road.

Mashantucket Pequot Chairman Rodney Butler rejoined, “With the reconfirmation from the [Bureau of Indian Affairs] in hand, we’re increasingly optimistic that our state’s leaders will rally around our employees like they’ve done for Sikorsky and Pratt & Whitney.” House members whose opinions were sampled offered a lot of ifs, buts and maybes. “At this moment, I’m on the fence with both,” waffled Rep. Jeffrey A. Currey. Malloy did his bit for firming up a consensus, saying, “I always believe you should have a realistic discussion about realistic outcomes, and it’s not realistic to put $260 million or more at risk.” He’s alluding to the MGM Resorts International proposal that would break the Mohegan/Foxwoods exclusivity in return for a Bridgeport. It’s a snake-oil solution, making the argument that one casino could outgross the two already in operation and generate $260 million in taxes, based on a 35% rate.

As it stands, the state’s haul from Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods is likely to decline to $192 million after MGM Springfield opens. For its part, MGM fails to talk about its real bottom line: protecting the Springfield market. Instead we get fake solicitude from mouthpiece Uri Clinton like this: “If the Senate bill were to ultimately become law, numerous national gaming operators — including MGM — would be precluded from offering a competitive bid for consideration. To shut down that opportunity would seem to be a disservice to Connecticut’s hardworking taxpayers.”

S&G doesn’t have a dog in this fight but, for the moment, we think Malloy is making the most sense.