AC: Revel Close...Sale...Fail
Quote: sodawaterFor a second here I thought Revel was selling its used bedding before closing.
haha so did I.
We stayed in the Penthouse suite in the Mirage. They actually have an order form for the items in their room. I was tempted to buy the bed as it was the most comfortable bed that I have ever slept in. Although I was drink every night so maybe I just passed out.
Quote: vendman1Going to AC this weekend..Sat to Mon...staying at the Revel if it's still open :) Will talk to the staff there and see if I can get any inside dirt on the sale. Anyone curious about anything in particular? I'll probably also swing by the 'boat for one last ride. I might also stop by the Trump Plaza; but only to spit on it. That place was a dump even when things were better in AC.
I am staying at Showboat Aug 4th through the 8th. It should be interesting.
Similarly we stayed at the Atlantic Club a few weeks after they announced their closing and everything went fine.
Quote: vendman1Going to AC this weekend..Sat to Mon...staying at the Revel if it's still open :) Will talk to the staff there and see if I can get any inside dirt on the sale. Anyone curious about anything in particular? I'll probably also swing by the 'boat for one last ride. I might also stop by the Trump Plaza; but only to spit on it. That place was a dump even when things were better in AC.
See you there
Quote: vendman1Going to AC this weekend..Sat to Mon...staying at the Revel if it's still open :) Will talk to the staff there and see if I can get any inside dirt on the sale. Anyone curious about anything in particular? I'll probably also swing by the 'boat for one last ride. I might also stop by the Trump Plaza; but only to spit on it. That place was a dump even when things were better in AC.
I'll be there in a couple of weeks. In the meantime, someone here blogged about a new blackjack game at Revel called Switch Hands Blackjack. The blog is still up. Can you see if that's a real game of if someone is pulling my leg?
http://cdcgamingreports.com/revel-allowed-to-pay-bonuses-if-sale-nets-high-enough-price/
Quote: DRichThis is awesome. Revel has been approved to pay management bonuses after the sale.
http://cdcgamingreports.com/revel-allowed-to-pay-bonuses-if-sale-nets-high-enough-price/
Capitalism, it works (for the rich)
Following the upstanding role model of the VA and IRS, among a host of others.Quote: DRichThis is awesome. Revel has been approved to pay management bonuses after the sale.
Quote: sodawaterQuote: DRichThis is awesome. Revel has been approved to pay management bonuses after the sale.
http://cdcgamingreports.com/revel-allowed-to-pay-bonuses-if-sale-nets-high-enough-price/
Capitalism, it works (for the rich)
This isn't even capitalism though. This is outright theft, and the judge is as complicit as the executives who are expecting to get paid. $1.75M bonus for running Revel into the toilet? WTF! How much would they have expected to get if they had managed to just break even? Unreal
Quote: RaleighCrapsThis isn't even capitalism though. This is outright theft, and the judge is as complicit as the executives who are expecting to get paid. $1.75M bonus for running Revel into the toilet? WTF! How much would they have expected to get if they had managed to just break even? Unreal
Did you actually read the article?
They are being paid bonuses if they can sell it for a high enough price. They aren't being paid bonuses for the work that they have already done; they are being paid a commission to get a good price on the sale.
Quote:The bonuses would only be paid if managers, whose identity isn’t disclosed, can bring in sale proceeds that reach a high enough threshold
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceDid you actually read the article?
They are being paid bonuses if they can sell it for a high enough price. They aren't being paid bonuses for the work that they have already done; they are being paid a commission to get a good price on the sale.
And that is still completely ridiculous.
Quote: sodawaterAnd that is still completely ridiculous.
Why? If it brings in more money for the sale, it sounds like it is in the best interests of creditors, which is all the the bankruptcy court should be protecting.
Maybe a good sales job can bring in an extra quarter billion, and you are worried about someone getting a quarter million of that for doing that good sales job? That's just silly. If you don't pay them they are not going to work at it; they will do the bare minimum and get a bad price for it.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceWhy? If it brings in more money for the sale, it sounds like it is in the best interests of creditors, which is all the the bankruptcy court should be protecting.
Maybe a good sales job can bring in an extra quarter billion, and you are worried about someone getting a quarter million of that for doing that good sales job? That's just silly. If you don't pay them they are not going to work at it; they will do the bare minimum and get a bad price for it.
Isn't it already the job and duty of the executives to get the best sale price for the stakeholders of the company? We need to pay these millionaires more money to do their basic jobs?
Executive compensation is totally out of whack and a huge problem in this country, primarily because so many executives sit on the boards of other companies. It's a club and you and I aren't in it, to channel George Carlin.
Do they pay the janitors bonuses if the bathroom is cleaner than some previously agreed upon threshold?
Quote: sodawaterIsn't it already the job and duty of the executives to get the best sale price for the stakeholders of the company? We need to pay these millionaires more money to do their basic jobs?
Executive compensation is totally out of whack and a huge problem in this country, primarily because so many executives sit on the boards of other companies. It's a club and you and I aren't in it, to channel George Carlin.
Do they pay the janitors bonuses if the bathroom is cleaner than some previously agreed upon threshold?
Revel does have the best bathroom in AC. 3rd floor between the old poker room and the elevators. I've debated sleeping in a stall if I was tired and had no room that night.
Quote: sodawaterIsn't it already the job and duty of the executives to get the best sale price for the stakeholders of the company? We need to pay these millionaires more money to do their basic jobs?
Yes, it is the executives' job, and executive compensation is generally largely performance based rather than a flat salary.
If they are not going to be paid for the sale, why stick around and do it? It's a lot of work. They could just resign. Do you think that they should work for free?
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceYes, it is the executives' job, and executive compensation is generally largely performance based rather than a flat salary.
If they are not going to be paid for the sale, why stick around and do it? It's a lot of work. They could just resign. Do you think that they should work for free?
No, they should work for their already-high salaries. If they resign, they won't get that salary. Is there a problem finding people qualified to receive large salaries to sell a business to the highest bidder?
The idea that we should give executives of a failing business a bonus for doing their pre-existing job of finding the best sale price for that failing business is laughable on its face.
You can say the compensation is "largely performance-based," but guess what? The executives already failed their stakeholders by running the company out of business.
Getting a good sale price for the leftover assets is not something that should be incentivized by stakeholders with bonus payments. It's already part of the job description and minimum ethical requirements of the management positions for which the executives are already being paid.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceDid you actually read the article?
They are being paid bonuses if they can sell it for a high enough price. They aren't being paid bonuses for the work that they have already done; they are being paid a commission to get a good price on the sale.
Yes, I did read the article. But let's look at the facts.
While I don't know what the executives are currently being paid, I would hazard a guess they are getting a very decent salary now, and have been, while they mismanaged Revel into the toilet. And now they deserve a $1.75M bonus if they manage to extract an unnamed amount for the sale of Revel? If they had done what they were being paid to do, there would be no need for a sale. And why should they get more money, when the creditors are going to take it up the yazz once again from a Revel bankruptcy.
How many of the employees who are making jack shit now are going to get a bonus from the sale?
I will say it again. It is downright THEFT.
Quote: sodawaterNo, they should work for their already-high salaries. If they resign, they won't get that salary. Is there a problem finding people qualified to receive large salaries to sell a business to the highest bidder?
Yes. I mean, you could find them (this is what often happens to a company in receivership -- the judge will assign someone to do it) but they charge a lot of money (probably more than these bonuses) and have no incentive to do a spectacular job since their pay is not performance based. Not that they would not do a passable job, but they have no incentive to go the extra mile.
Quote:The idea that we should give executives of a failing business a bonus for doing their pre-existing job of finding the best sale price for that failing business is laughable on its face.
Exec get paid bonuses to do their jobs. That is how their compensation works.
Quote:You can say the compensation is "largely performance-based," but guess what? The executives already failed their stakeholders by running the company out of business.
These bonuses are specifically for selling the company at a higher-than-expected price, not for past performance.
Quote:Getting a good sale price for the leftover assets is not something that should be incentivized by stakeholders with bonus payments. It's already part of the job description and minimum ethical requirements of the management positions for which the executives are already being paid.
Why should it not be incentivized? If doing this makes the most money for the creditors, then it's the right thing to do. Once a company goes into bankruptcy, it's the court's job to protect their interests.
It sounds like you think that they should do something that is -EV out of spite. And that is ridiculous. If I was a creditor, I would want to do whatever could be done to get my as much of my money back as possible, regardless of my personal feelings towards the execs. Money over spite, every time.
Quote: RaleighCrapsYes, I did read the article. But let's look at the facts.
While I don't know what the executives are currently being paid, I would hazard a guess they are getting a very decent salary now, and have been, while they mismanaged Revel into the toilet. And now they deserve a $1.75M bonus if they manage to extract an unnamed amount for the sale of Revel? If they had done what they were being paid to do, there would be no need for a sale. And why should they get more money, when the creditors are going to take it up the yazz once again from a Revel bankruptcy.
Yes, they should, if doing so will increase the amount that the company is sold for, because this is what helps the creditors the most.
Quote:How many of the employees who are making jack shit now are going to get a bonus from the sale?
What do employees have to do with this? This is all about recovering as much money as possible for the creditors. That's what happens when a company goes into bankruptcy. It's the judge's job to ensure that that happens, and it sounds like that's exactly what has happened here.
Quote:I will say it again. It is downright THEFT.
From who? The creditors who get more money as a result of this?
Quote: RaleighCrapsYes, I did read the article. But let's look at the facts.
While I don't know what the executives are currently being paid, I would hazard a guess they are getting a very decent salary now, and have been, while they mismanaged Revel into the toilet. And now they deserve a $1.75M bonus if they manage to extract an unnamed amount for the sale of Revel? If they had done what they were being paid to do, there would be no need for a sale. And why should they get more money, when the creditors are going to take it up the yazz once again from a Revel bankruptcy.
How many of the employees who are making jack shit now are going to get a bonus from the sale?
I will say it again. It is downright THEFT.
+100
Quote: onenickelmiracleIn Japan, they wouldn't need a bonus, they would just kill themselves. Depending on the details, sounds like these bonuses might jeopardize the sale altogether if the price blinds them from accepting a reasonable offer they won't be paid on to receive. These kinds of things you can't do anything about beyond tying long term goals of the company with compensation together. Say if you're the ceo, you take risks which fail miserably in 4 years, you would be personally be harmed because you haven't yet received the money. Won't happen in our system, but it would be better for long term investors. Arbitrarily, I would defer their bonuses 7 years and make them unable to be used as any kind of collateral. Otherwise, I think it's fair to give their families a bonus if they can reach the target on the Boardwalk jumping from the ball on the roof. It has to be a bullseye or it's a fail.
In the end, it's up to the judge. It is his job to approve the things that will get the most money for the creditors.
The judge, who has all the facts, has decided that this is the best course of action for the creditors. The people reading this article, who don't have the facts, have decided that they are in a better position than the judge to determine the best course of action.
Gee, I wonder who I will trust on this one? I think I'll go with the judge over the peanut gallery here...
Aw Shucks. I didn't know a judge was involved. If a judge decided based on all the facts, then it must be the right decision.Quote: AxiomOfChoiceIn the end, it's up to the judge. It is his job to approve the things that will get the most money for the creditors.
The judge, who has all the facts, has decided that this is the best course of action for the creditors. The people reading this article, who don't have the facts, have decided that they are in a better position than the judge to determine the best course of action.
Gee, I wonder who I will trust on this one? I think I'll go with the judge over the peanut gallery here...
Quote: onenickelmiracleAw Shucks. I didn't know a judge was involved. If a judge decided based on all the facts, then it must be the right decision.
Well, certainly more likely to be right than the decision made by people who don't know any of the facts and appear not to even understand the purpose of the court.
I never got an answer to my question -- theft from whom, exactly? Theft generally requires that someone is stolen from. Who is being stolen from?
I'm not involved with that discussion. I assume they mean some sort of extortion or hostage taking of the company. I did notice your arguments justifying their pay sounds like a minimum wage raise argument though which amuses me because I would guess you would flip your opinions to not justify it.Quote: AxiomOfChoiceWell, certainly more likely to be right than the decision made by people who don't know any of the facts and appear not to even understand the purpose of the court.
I never got an answer to my question -- theft from whom, exactly? Theft generally requires that someone is stolen from. Who is being stolen from?
Quote: onenickelmiracleI'm not involved with that discussion. I assume they mean some sort of extortion or hostage taking of the company. I did notice your arguments justifying their pay sounds like a minimum wage raise argument though which amuses me because I would guess you would flip your opinions to not justify it.
I don't see any similarity. How are they similar?
This is simply a question of the company wanting to pay someone to do a job (namely, sell off the assets to get creditors as much money as possible). It needed to be approved by a judge, to ensure that they actually are acting in the best interests of creditors, and it was. I don't see the problem.
Quote: RaleighCrapsHow many of the employees who are making jack shit now are going to get a bonus from the sale?
I will say it again. It is downright THEFT.
'Forget it, Jake. It's New Jersey.'
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceIn the end, it's up to the judge. It is his job to approve the things that will get the most money for the creditors.
The judge, who has all the facts, has decided that this is the best course of action for the creditors. The people reading this article, who don't have the facts, have decided that they are in a better position than the judge to determine the best course of action.
Gee, I wonder who I will trust on this one? I think I'll go with the judge over the peanut gallery here...
I agree that the effort should be spent to get the most money from the sale, so the creditors receive as much as possible. Where we differ is I don't believe the execs should profit one more nickel from this deal.
Now, should the execs somehow come up with a deal that is way over what the expected sale amount was, THEN, perhaps I could see a bonus being paid. But it would have to be WAY, WAY over what the expected sale amount was, AND, the execs would need to explain exactly what it was that they personally did that made the sale go higher than expected.
But that is pretty unlikely.
I guess it is all in one's perspective. I spent 33 years in a blue chip company, and watched as the execs have run it almost into the ground over the last 14 years, bleeding the employees dry with no raises, loss of pensions, loss of benefits, etc., while the total exec compensation has risen over 200% during the same time frame. So perhaps I am hyper-sensitive about bonus payouts to execs who have not done a very good job.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceWell, certainly more likely to be right than the decision made by people who don't know any of the facts and appear not to even understand the purpose of the court.
I never got an answer to my question -- theft from whom, exactly? Theft generally requires that someone is stolen from. Who is being stolen from?
The theft is from the creditors. Where is the bonus money going to come from?
Someone buys Revel for $30M. $5M gets paid out to the execs. $25M goes to the creditors who probably are due much more, so they only get pennies on their dollars. In the end, the creditors are the ones paying the bonus to the execs who screwed up the business that cost them money.
Quote: RaleighCrapsI agree that the effort should be spent to get the most money from the sale, so the creditors receive as much as possible. Where we differ is I don't believe the execs should profit one more nickel from this deal.
That's not a logical statement. You don't allow for the possibility that the way to maximize the amount of the sale is to pay the execs a bonus for selling it at a high price.
Let's turn the question around. Suppose that the maximum sale price would come from paying the execs that bonus. Anything else would result in a lower price. Why should the creditors have to accept a lower price?
You keep bringing up the employees. They have nothing to do with this. The company is in bankruptcy; the only thing that matters at this point is liquidating the assets at the highest possible price so that the creditors can be made as whole as possible. No one else has a stake in this.
Quote: RaleighCrapsThe theft is from the creditors. Where is the bonus money going to come from?
Someone buys Revel for $30M. $5M gets paid out to the execs. $25M goes to the creditors who probably are due much more, so they only get pennies on their dollars. In the end, the creditors are the ones paying the bonus to the execs who screwed up the business that cost them money.
You are assuming that the bonuses don't result in a higher sale price. The whole point of this is that the amount of the higher sale price exceeds the amount of the bonuses. In other words, the creditors end up with more money, not less.
That's a funny kind of theft, where the people being stolen from end up with more money.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceYou are assuming that the bonuses don't result in a higher sale price. The whole point of this is that the amount of the higher sale price exceeds the amount of the bonuses. In other words, the creditors end up with more money, not less.
That's a funny kind of theft, where the people being stolen from end up with more money.
And you, throughout this "discussion", are assuming that there are people with this kind of money unaware of such an "opportunity" as a failing Atlantic City Casino Hotel. The buyers aren't the fools you seem to think who are going to fall victim to some sales pitch by an existing "executive" trying to earn a bonus. It's not a striptease club where emotion comes in to play. Another aspect you left out is the tax incentives given to build and open said property. These IMHO amount to theft of the taxpayers.
Oh boy.Quote: aceofspadesGiving out bonuses while they just fired certain hosts last night!
Quote: aceofspadesGiving out bonuses while they just fired certain hosts last night!
In the archives I predicted the fall of
Revel even before they opened, because
they were non smoking. I was mocked
and ridiculed, as usual. Who's laughing
now. You don't open a huge resort hotel
in a dying AC and exclude half the players
right off the bat. Unless you're clueless.
Quote: EvenBobIn the archives I predicted the fall of
Revel even before they opened, because
they were non smoking. I was mocked
and ridiculed, as usual. Who's laughing
now. You don't open a huge resort hotel
in a dying AC and exclude half the players
right off the bat. Unless you're clueless.
Yes, Bob, it's got everything to do with being non-smoking, and nothing to do with:
-- ridiculous mismanagement
-- No buses
-- Terrible loyalty program
-- Stingy room/comp offers at opening
-- OH AND DOZENS OF CASINOS OPENING IN EVERY STATE SURROUNDING NJ
Revel was only non-smoking for a little while. They didn't do any better once they allowed smoking. And not even close to "half" of AC casino patrons smoke.
Quote: NokTangI would assume most AC casinos are playing with "scared money". A good time to take advantage and win some money there.
IMO you are betting off getting them when they are desperate for big action, not when they are scared of it.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceIMO you are betting off getting them when they are desperate for big action, not when they are scared of it.
I would assume the "whales" of the world are avoiding AC in fear they won't be paid if they win?
Quote: sodawaterYes, Bob, it's got everything to do with being non-smoking, and nothing to do with:
-- ridiculous mismanagement
-- No buses
-- Terrible loyalty program
-- Stingy room/comp offers at opening
-- OH AND DOZENS OF CASINOS OPENING IN EVERY STATE SURROUNDING NJ
Revel was only non-smoking for a little while. They didn't do any better once they allowed smoking. And not even close to "half" of AC casino patrons smoke.
And telling players they are "flagged in the system for disputing payouts"
Quote: sodawaterYes, Bob, it's got everything to do with being non-smoking, and nothing to do with:
.
The non smoking showed they were incompetent
and not connected to what it took to run a casino
in AC. It was the tip of the iceberg.
This doesn't matter. Two people, three people, maybe four people in a group, will go where the smoker can smoke. Heard this the other day from some old man talking about me as if I wasn't there whining to his wife, "there are more of us than them". I turned my head to the left and blew smoke his way and he was gone in 5 seconds.Quote: sodawaterAnd not even close to "half" of AC casino patrons smoke.
Quote: onenickelmiracleThis doesn't matter. Two people, three people, maybe four people in a group, will go where the smoker can smoke. Heard this the other day from some old man talking about me as if I wasn't there whining to his wife, "there are more of us than them". I turned my head to the left and blew smoke his way and he was gone in 5 seconds.
I started carrying this little battery operated fan. If a smoker sits next to me and blows smoke my way I turn it on and blow it back. I have pissed off 7 people in 9 days. I only do it to the really obnoxious people who actually blow it in my direction or put the ashtray right next to my machine where the smoke had no where else to go. My next move is to get some kind of spray that smells like horrible b.o. and spray that as well.
"No qualified bids have come in for the auction and sale of the bankrupt Revel Casino and Resort in Atlantic City, a source involved in the auction tells NBC10.com"
Read more: http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/No-Qualified-Bids-for-Revel-Casino-Source-270767211.html#ixzz3A6KrPXLV
Follow us: @nbcphiladelphia on Twitter | nbcphiladelphia on Facebook
Think it's the other way around. No qualified bidders just means nobody dumber than them. They still think they're sitting on gold after everything.Quote: 7star4nowNBC10 Source confirms No qualified bidder for Revel
"No qualified bids have come in for the auction and sale of the bankrupt Revel Casino and Resort in Atlantic City, a source involved in the auction tells NBC10.com"
Read more: http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/No-Qualified-Bids-for-Revel-Casino-Source-270767211.html#ixzz3A6KrPXLV
Follow us: @nbcphiladelphia on Twitter | nbcphiladelphia on Facebook
Quote: onenickelmiracleThink it's the other way around. No qualified bidders just means nobody dumber than them. They still think they're sitting on gold after everything.
Yeah, it seems like many can't comprehend , especially when they see the limited # of rooms Revel ever finished "sold out"on summer weekends, they are bleeding $ each day , & the well is dry - as far as finding anyone stupid enuf to lend them more $ to remain open day to day .
It would makes sense to close the doors asap, & stop the bleeding, if no real buyer came forward by now.
It's easy for us to say they should try to stay open, but it's not our $ being flushed down the toilet every day.
Is anyone surprised by this?
Maybe a few "savvy" AC "destination experts" who mocked warnings , such as this, & claimed they possessed superior casino finance aptitude
http://www.alacrastore.com/s-and-p-credit-research/Summary-Revel-AC-Inc-885647
