Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Maryland > Washington, DC suburbs in Maryland
 [Register]
Washington, DC suburbs in Maryland Calvert County, Charles County, Montgomery County, and Prince George's County
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-09-2015, 07:21 AM
 
Location: It's in the name!
7,070 posts, read 9,494,352 times
Reputation: 3778
Quote:
Originally Posted by justtitans View Post
Not sure what they were thinking. There is clearly an over saturation of casinos. Same thing happened to the casinos in Detroit/Cleveland.

Who is they? The state? Plain and simple, it is the market at play. Those businesses who have a weak business model will fall. Those who are strong survive. The state is not responsible for floating failing businesses. So what if attrition happens? That's the natural course of the market. What the people of Maryland get are higher quality casinos in areas where they can maintain a good revenue stream. The revenues that Perryville no longer generates will be assumed by the remaining casinos.

We can apply this market situation to any industry where competition is strong or over-saturation exists. No one says we have too many drug stores or consumer electronic stores. Or even too many theaters if you keep the industry strictly to what's happening now in the movie entertainment business. These fancier movie theaters will cause other theaters to up their game (improve in quality) and those that can't will fade away.

Perryville only existed because there was no casino closer to DC and Baltimore outside of Atlantic City. I think Charlsetown may be equidistant. Maryland new that Perryville would take a hit. Any freshman who takes economics knows that when you have market saturation, those that offer the best products to consumers in the best locations will weed out the weak products. They new this when they approved Maryland Live!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-09-2015, 07:39 AM
 
Location: On the Chesapeake
44,888 posts, read 59,882,454 times
Reputation: 60433
Quote:
Originally Posted by adelphi_sky View Post
Who is they? The state? Plain and simple, it is the market at play. Those businesses who have a weak business model will fall. Those who are strong survive. The state is not responsible for floating failing businesses. So what if attrition happens? That's the natural course of the market. What the people of Maryland get are higher quality casinos in areas where they can maintain a good revenue stream. The revenues that Perryville no longer generates will be assumed by the remaining casinos.

We can apply this market situation to any industry where competition is strong or over-saturation exists. No one says we have too many drug stores or consumer electronic stores. Or even too many theaters if you keep the industry strictly to what's happening now in the movie entertainment business. These fancier movie theaters will cause other theaters to up their game (improve in quality) and those that can't will fade away.

Perryville only existed because there was no casino closer to DC and Baltimore outside of Atlantic City. I think Charlsetown may be equidistant. Maryland new that Perryville would take a hit. Any freshman who takes economics knows that when you have market saturation, those that offer the best products to consumers in the best locations will weed out the weak products. They new this when they approved Maryland Live!

Actually no. The early predictions were that Perryville would be the most successful as it is on a major travel route and would entice interstate travelers.

During the run up to passing the gambling bill Perryville was the only one where the location was locked in. All the rest of the locations, Baltimore, Maryland Live, the one in Western Maryland, were moving targets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2015, 07:50 AM
 
Location: DMV
10,125 posts, read 13,917,056 times
Reputation: 3222
Quote:
Originally Posted by adelphi_sky View Post
Who is they? The state? Plain and simple, it is the market at play. Those businesses who have a weak business model will fall. Those who are strong survive. The state is not responsible for floating failing businesses. So what if attrition happens? That's the natural course of the market. What the people of Maryland get are higher quality casinos in areas where they can maintain a good revenue stream. The revenues that Perryville no longer generates will be assumed by the remaining casinos.

We can apply this market situation to any industry where competition is strong or over-saturation exists. No one says we have too many drug stores or consumer electronic stores. Or even too many theaters if you keep the industry strictly to what's happening now in the movie entertainment business. These fancier movie theaters will cause other theaters to up their game (improve in quality) and those that can't will fade away.

Perryville only existed because there was no casino closer to DC and Baltimore outside of Atlantic City. I think Charlsetown may be equidistant. Maryland new that Perryville would take a hit. Any freshman who takes economics knows that when you have market saturation, those that offer the best products to consumers in the best locations will weed out the weak products. They new this when they approved Maryland Live!
And to your point earlier, if you are going to keep building casinos that are clearly hurting each other and taking business away from one another, what exactly is the gain in the long run for the state?

I'm not here to argue who has a better business model, I'm simply stating that there are too many. A casino is not a drug store or a electronic store. A casino is a completely different thing, with a much broader clientele who are likely not to frequent it as often as a neighborhood store. Apples and Oranges. Again, the same thing has happened in other parts of the country. I highly doubt they expected all of these to last. They have no problem dipping into resources to make a better iteration of the previous casino until they got what is now about to be MGM but in the long run it hurt those who invested in places like Perryville.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2015, 12:22 PM
 
Location: It's in the name!
7,070 posts, read 9,494,352 times
Reputation: 3778
Quote:
Originally Posted by justtitans View Post
And to your point earlier, if you are going to keep building casinos that are clearly hurting each other and taking business away from one another, what exactly is the gain in the long run for the state?
Well, the state isn't building casinos. They open up licenses for companies to bid on. If a casino operator feels that they have a product to offer an undeserved market, why shouldn't they spend millions of their own money to operate? What I don't understand is why people look at casinos as some business that works outside of the laws of market dynamics. Just like any other business, they have a right to make revenue and a duty to pay some of that revenue to their local governing body in taxes. The same goes for Marriott, CVS, or Regal Theaters. The natural forces of the market will shake out those who are weak and reward those that are strong. Why should the state be responsible for the risk businesses assume on their own?

Yes, the Perryville operators thought that they would be only one of three operators in the state. But that has since changed. Nothing is a guarantee in business. I'm sure Radio Shack and Circuit City felt they would live forever. Gaylord got bought out by Marriott. Business landscapes change. You either have what it takes to survive or you get left behind. Now, what CAN happen is that Perryville gets bought out and redeveloped.

Quote:
I'm not here to argue who has a better business model, I'm simply stating that there are too many. A casino is not a drug store or a electronic store. A casino is a completely different thing, with a much broader clientele who are likely not to frequent it as often as a neighborhood store. Apples and Oranges. Again, the same thing has happened in other parts of the country. I highly doubt they expected all of these to last.
In the context of a free market and natural market forces, a casino is the same as a hot-dog stand on the corner. A business is a business is a business. Unless you are a non-profit. A casino sells entertainment. It doesn't matter the number of patrons a business caters to. Look at how many Marriott hotels are in the area. Is that business not the same as a casino? Do they not provide a service for a fee to build revenue? Do they not in turn give that revenue to the sate in the form of taxes? Aren't there hotels that close and/or get bought out on a regular basis? Judging by the emptiness at times of some hotels, couldn't you say there's an over-saturation of hotels? How are they different than casinos? Look at the number of hotels in College park alone. And they are about to build two more. Is that a bad thing? Or will the market dictate winners and losers? There can't always be winners.

Quote:
They have no problem dipping into resources to make a better iteration of the previous casino until they got what is now about to be MGM but in the long run it hurt those who invested in places like Perryville.
And why should the state consider the investors of a particular casino? Since when does the welfare of certain investors become the state's responsibility? Whatever happened to risk on the part of the investor? Why should the state court Perryville investors? Or, why should the state court Marriott investors over Choice Hotels? To the victor goes the spoils. In the casino industry, we have companies fighting over each other to locate here, despite the high taxes, and now it is a problem?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2015, 12:40 PM
 
Location: It's in the name!
7,070 posts, read 9,494,352 times
Reputation: 3778
This statement sums up my point about market forces the best. This is a pizza restaurant operator looking to locate in College Park which already has a dozen pizza places.

Quote:
Greenberg said he is not worried about this adding to the plethora of pizza shops throughout College Park.
“One thing I learned a long time ago: You do your homework, you do your research and you do the best job you can,” he said. “You can’t worry about anyone else.”
The Hotel at the University of Maryland complex to house restaurants, spa - The Diamondback : News

Now what about the pizza businesses before him who thought that no more pizza restaurants would come to College Park? Is it then College Park's responsibility to stop more pizza parlors from doing business in College Park to "protect" a select few? Wouldn't that send an anti-business message to those wishing to enter the market - the very message maryland is trying to get away from? I say open up to all businesses and let the market sort everything out. If I feel I have a supioror product, why not let me offer that to your residents if the risk is all mine?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2015, 01:14 PM
 
Location: On the Chesapeake
44,888 posts, read 59,882,454 times
Reputation: 60433
Quote:
Originally Posted by adelphi_sky View Post
This statement sums up my point about market forces the best. This is a pizza restaurant operator looking to locate in College Park which already has a dozen pizza places.



The Hotel at the University of Maryland complex to house restaurants, spa - The Diamondback : News

Now what about the pizza businesses before him who thought that no more pizza restaurants would come to College Park? Is it then College Park's responsibility to stop more pizza parlors from doing business in College Park to "protect" a select few? Wouldn't that send an anti-business message to those wishing to enter the market - the very message maryland is trying to get away from? I say open up to all businesses and let the market sort everything out. If I feel I have a supioror product, why not let me offer that to your residents if the risk is all mine?

You wouldn't believe what some business people want local governments to ban. Usually it's a competitor.

That just happened down here in Solomon's. A new player wanted to get a liquor license for an off-sale kiosk in an existing grocery (the store had sold liquor prior to being sold to a new owner) and the liquor store owners went nuts. The request was denied.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2015, 02:29 PM
 
Location: DMV
10,125 posts, read 13,917,056 times
Reputation: 3222
Quote:
Originally Posted by adelphi_sky View Post
Well, the state isn't building casinos. They open up licenses for companies to bid on. If a casino operator feels that they have a product to offer an undeserved market, why shouldn't they spend millions of their own money to operate? What I don't understand is why people look at casinos as some business that works outside of the laws of market dynamics. Just like any other business, they have a right to make revenue and a duty to pay some of that revenue to their local governing body in taxes. The same goes for Marriott, CVS, or Regal Theaters. The natural forces of the market will shake out those who are weak and reward those that are strong. Why should the state be responsible for the risk businesses assume on their own?
That's not completely true. The state decided on how many gambling locations that were allowed. It is the law. We could have easily have not added another casino on to MD but we did, so the state is absolutely included from the law makers who proposed the bill, to the people who voted for it to be amended.

Of course a business like MGM is going to take an opportunity at opening a business in our region, but it comes down to what does that mean for the companies you have already brought here. You are essentially putting them out of business. People lose jobs and opportunities. It's not a good look, especially if you as a state push these casinos out as opportunities for people to make a living, only to bring another one in to cancel that out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by adelphi_sky View Post
Yes, the Perryville operators thought that they would be only one of three operators in the state. But that has since changed. Nothing is a guarantee in business. I'm sure Radio Shack and Circuit City felt they would live forever. Gaylord got bought out by Marriott. Business landscapes change. You either have what it takes to survive or you get left behind. Now, what CAN happen is that Perryville gets bought out and redeveloped.
That's my point though. At some point you are being counterproductive. If you were weren't satisfied with those 3 casinos then why even open them from the jump? It's greed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by adelphi_sky View Post
In the context of a free market and natural market forces, a casino is the same as a hot-dog stand on the corner. A business is a business is a business. Unless you are a non-profit. A casino sells entertainment. It doesn't matter the number of patrons a business caters to. Look at how many Marriott hotels are in the area. Is that business not the same as a casino? Do they not provide a service for a fee to build revenue? Do they not in turn give that revenue to the sate in the form of taxes? Aren't there hotels that close and/or get bought out on a regular basis? Judging by the emptiness at times of some hotels, couldn't you say there's an over-saturation of hotels? How are they different than casinos? Look at the number of hotels in College park alone. And they are about to build two more. Is that a bad thing? Or will the market dictate winners and losers? There can't always be winners.
I am not arguing the economics, I am arguing the vision of the state and how much sense it made to start building casinos in the manner that it did. When people end up losing jobs, it reflects poorly on you as a state, especially when you already have that reputation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by adelphi_sky View Post
And why should the state consider the investors of a particular casino? Since when does the welfare of certain investors become the state's responsibility? Whatever happened to risk on the part of the investor? Why should the state court Perryville investors? Or, why should the state court Marriott investors over Choice Hotels? To the victor goes the spoils. In the casino industry, we have companies fighting over each other to locate here, despite the high taxes, and now it is a problem?
If the MGM location and/or the Maryland Live! location were first, this probably wouldn't be discussion. Again it's just poor planning.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2015, 05:39 PM
 
Location: It's in the name!
7,070 posts, read 9,494,352 times
Reputation: 3778
Quote:
Originally Posted by justtitans View Post
That's not completely true. The state decided on how many gambling locations that were allowed. It is the law. We could have easily have not added another casino on to MD but we did, so the state is absolutely included from the law makers who proposed the bill, to the people who voted for it to be amended.
If by state you mean the people of Maryland, yes. the 6th license was voted in. The people felt that a casino in prince George's County, essentially at National Harbor close to DC and Nova, made sense. Whether it is a law or not, I fail to see how allowing more businesses to compete is a bad thing. Whether there are 6 licenses or 60. Again, if Perryville can't compete, then perhaps another operator with more resources such as Penn gaming will assume Perryville's license. And I personally feel it would be a step up and save that location from being closed down.

Quote:
Of course a business like MGM is going to take an opportunity at opening a business in our region, but it comes down to what does that mean for the companies you have already brought here. You are essentially putting them out of business. People lose jobs and opportunities. It's not a good look, especially if you as a state push these casinos out as opportunities for people to make a living, only to bring another one in to cancel that out.
If we use this logic, then there would only be one liquor license in the state or one restaurant license in the state. Any license created, first come only served right? Isn't that anti business? What if the the first pizza place in College Park was the only pizza place allowed to operate because we wanted to "protect it and it's employees?" That would suck for College park right? Limited options and choices. The pizza place would have an unfair monopoly. Wouldn't it be more fair to open it up to other pizza places to serve more of College Park while pushing prices down while increase the quality of the product through competition? Businesses close. People lose their jobs. Monopolies are so 1930s. Unless you think the state should place a cap on all business competition. Who then would be able to open a business in the state to compete? Surely you don't expect a business to last forever. Even when it holds one of 6 licenses to operate in a state. It either ups its game or it folds.

Quote:
That's my point though. At some point you are being counterproductive. If you were weren't satisfied with those 3 casinos then why even open them from the jump? It's greed.
Not sure I get your point here. If there is market demand, and the three other casinos spent thousands studying this demand, then why not? Maryland still had spillover into other states for gambling. And there was an untapped market from Richmond to NoVa where those other casinos were too far. Read that analyst report I included in this thread where more than one research analyst said even with competition and the high taxes, MGM would still have an ROI of 20%. these people do their homework. If there were no demand here, I don't think they would be willing to spend millions to operate here.

Look at Atlantic City where demand, from keeping Marylanders in the state of Maryland, has flatlined the demand in Atlantic City. is MGM spending millions to operate a new casino there? Nope. No demand.

Quote:
I am not arguing the economics, I am arguing the vision of the state and how much sense it made to start building casinos in the manner that it did. When people end up losing jobs, it reflects poorly on you as a state, especially when you already have that reputation.
Sorry. This is completely illogical. If Perryville closes, it is Perryville's fault. Not the state. If the state yanked Perryville's license, then it would be the state's fault. If Perryville doesn't have the capital or the resources to offer a better product, then by the very nature of the free market, they should fold. You can't twist market dynamics to fit an ethical point-of-view. More competition, in its purest form, should benefit the public by offering better quality products and lower prices. Perryville is responsible for Perryville. Sorry. We'll agree to disagree.

[quote]
If the MGM location and/or the Maryland Live! location were first, this probably wouldn't be discussion. Again it's just poor planning.[/QUOTE

Yeah. We'll just disagree. Like I said, everyone can't be a winner in business. It is not the state's fault for opening up the playing field. Maryland is supposed to start bringing business in remember? Now you're talking about stifling competition to save one casino. You can't have it both ways. You either open up business and be business friendly, or you put a cap on entry to the market place which depresses a competitive market.

Why do you think people are frustrated now with a lack of cable TV operator options? According to your logic, no one in Maryland would have FIOS. That would suckkkkkkkk. Because FIOS is an awesome product. Should we have only one or two cable operators or would it be better if we had 3 that included the great product FIOS offers? Even though one cable company may fold? How is that a bad thing?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2015, 05:39 PM
 
158 posts, read 215,351 times
Reputation: 140
Maryland live will have to lower their table limits or close. Bmore residents will go to the shoe. PG County/DC/Nova will go to MGM.

Maryland Live has already made all the money to pay back their investors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2015, 12:55 PM
 
2,429 posts, read 3,552,424 times
Reputation: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalianExec View Post
Maryland live will have to lower their table limits or close. Bmore residents will go to the shoe. PG County/DC/Nova will go to MGM.

Maryland Live has already made all the money to pay back their investors.
I wouldn't be surprised if MD Live "transfers" their license in the next few years and exits the market once they have gained ground in some of the other markets they are pursuing. As a smaller player in the gaming industry they won't be able to offer the incentives of some of the other players in this market.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Maryland > Washington, DC suburbs in Maryland
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top