Former Revel TEN
The owner is not a fan of gambling, or so he says. He has claimed his focus will not be on the casino.Quote: jerrysnjThe Press of Atlantic City has reported that Ten has hired former Taj executives to run their resort which is on target for an opening in the first quarter of 2017. It will be interesting g to see if the place does open, how it will do without all the debt the former Revel had and less costly heat and electric now that they own their own power plant. I can't imagine it will be successful if the North Jersey casino vote is passed, though it looks like it will be defeated. Even if that vote goes down they will have to be more creative than the former owners to bring in gamblers and turn a profit.
Hopefully someone will convince him otherwise.
Quote: AxelWolfThe owner is not a fan of gambling, or so he says. He has claimed his focus will not be on the casino.
Hopefully someone will convince him otherwise.
lol.. then why did he buy it?
Quote: jerrysnj...I can't imagine it will be successful if the North Jersey casino vote is passed, though it looks like it will be defeated. Even if that vote goes down they will have to be more creative than the former owners to bring in gamblers and turn a profit.
Per the above photo, Meadowland Race Track asks Jersey Guys to vote YES on Question#1 to OK a casino in Meadowland.
I think it's already a done deal.
Some racing fans reported that a group of electricians, carpenters, and other contractors are currently working to get the Meadowland ready.
The owner will not waste money on contractors if he doesn't get a green light/reasonable assurance from Trenton, right guys?
Quote: Artemis
Per the above photo, Meadowland Race Track asks Jersey Guys to vote YES on Question#1 to OK a casino in Meadowland.
I think it's already a done deal.
Some racing fans reported that a group of electricians, carpenters, and other contractors are currently working to get the Meadowland ready.
The owner will not waste money on contractors if he doesn't get a green light/reasonable assurance from Trenton, right guys?
I kno someone who works there. The owner feels he has to hav the casino to b profitable but it is dependent on the vote. He is ready and anxious to move if its okayed
Quote: ArtemisI think it's already a done deal.
Some racing fans reported that a group of electricians, carpenters, and other contractors are currently working to get the Meadowlands ready.
It's been widely reported that the pro-North Jersey casino group has abandoned its promotional efforts to "vote yes", in effect conceding defeat this time around.
We continue to see daily "vote no" TV spots in the NY market, bankrolled by gaming interests in NYC & PA, but haven't seen any "vote yes" media buys of any kind in several weeks.
The polls indicate the vote could be 70% or greater against expansion.
Quote: coachbellyIt's been widely reported that the pro-North Jersey casino group has abandoned its promotional efforts to "vote yes", in effect conceding defeat this time around.
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/11/north_jersey_casino_referendum_has_been_an_unusual_one.html
I'm voting No for a different reason.
The resolution specifies that the new casinos must be at least 72 miles from Atlantic City. It seems to me that if the Meadowlands Racetrack should be a contender for a casino, then Monmouth Racetrack should also be a contender. After all, both already are gambling facilities. Except Monmouth is only 69 miles from AC. That smells like political bullshit to me, so I vote NO.
I kinda doubt this.Quote: ArtemisSome racing fans reported that a group of electricians, carpenters, and other contractors are currently working to get the Meadowland ready.
In 2013, a new grandstand on the other side of the track was built, and opened in November. The old grandstand, a stone's throw from MetLife Stadium, was used in some capacity during the SuperBowl. It still stands. As far as I know, it's unused.
It wouldn't take much to throw up a coat of paint and some carpeting to get this facility ready for use as a temporary location while the fancy casino is being built. But why put any effort or money into it before the resolution passes? Besides, even if it passes, there's still a lot of time consuming red tape to take care of.
Of course not! It's an entirely different game of random chance with the house heavily favored. ;-) I will be voting on a similar gambling expansion bill for Massachusetts. It seems states are rushing to reach a saturation point for gaming and assuming first establishment is a critical advantage.Quote: jerrysnj... a lottery is not gambling.
Quote: DJTeddyBearI live in Northern NJ, about 15 miles from the Meadowlands. For what it's worth, I'm kinda on the fence on this. I'd love having a casino so close, while I also fear that I'd become a total degen.
I'm voting No for a different reason.
The resolution specifies that the new casinos must be at least 72 miles from Atlantic City. It seems to me that if the Meadowlands Racetrack should be a contender for a casino, then Monmouth Racetrack should also be a contender. After all, both already are gambling facilities. Except Monmouth is only 69 miles from AC. That smells like political bullshit to me, so I vote NO.
I kinda doubt this.
In 2013, a new grandstand on the other side of the track was built, and opened in November. The old grandstand, a stone's throw from MetLife Stadium, was used in some capacity during the SuperBowl. It still stands. As far as I know, it's unused.
It wouldn't take much to throw up a coat of paint and some carpeting to get this facility ready for use as a temporary location while the fancy casino is being built. But why put any effort or money into it before the resolution passes? Besides, even if it passes, there's still a lot of time consuming red tape to take care of.
wow that sure does smell rotten. I wonder where they came up with the number 72? Say they make it 65, is there another one at 59 that would then cry foul? If there are a much of places then it could be a first one out like in the NCAA tournament that always has someone upset.
Actually, there ARE two other horse tracks in NJ. One is the Atlantic City track, so that doesn't matter. The other is Freehold. About 64 miles from AC, and 12 miles from Monmouth. However, Both Freehold and Monmouth are in Monmouth County, and the proposal limits the new casinos to one per county. So only one of them would qualify.Quote: GWAEwow that sure does smell rotten. I wonder where they came up with the number 72? Say they make it 65, is there another one at 59 that would then cry foul? If there are a much of places then it could be a first one out like in the NCAA tournament that always has someone upset.
Frankly, I forgot that there was also a track in Freehold.
Quote: DJTeddyBearI live in Northern NJ, about 15 miles from the Meadowlands. For what it's worth, I'm kinda on the fence on this. I'd love having a casino so close, while I also fear that I'd become a total degen.
I'm voting No for a different reason.
The resolution specifies that the new casinos must be at least 72 miles from Atlantic City. It seems to me that if the Meadowlands Racetrack should be a contender for a casino, then Monmouth Racetrack should also be a contender. After all, both already are gambling facilities. Except Monmouth is only 69 miles from AC. That smells like political bullshit to me, so I vote NO.
I kinda doubt this.
In 2013, a new grandstand on the other side of the track was built, and opened in November. The old grandstand, a stone's throw from MetLife Stadium, was used in some capacity during the SuperBowl. It still stands. As far as I know, it's unused.
It wouldn't take much to throw up a coat of paint and some carpeting to get this facility ready for use as a temporary location while the fancy casino is being built. But why put any effort or money into it before the resolution passes? Besides, even if it passes, there's still a lot of time consuming red tape to take care of.
I agree with everything you said.
Atlantic City is a 75 mile drive to the south and the Meadowlands is a 75 miles drive to the north. I'm stuck in the middle.
Monmouth Park is only a 10 mile drive from my home and it was purposely omitted from this proposal because according to my sample Sample Ballot,Each casino is to be located in a town that is at least 72 miles from Atlantic City. To me they are saying "screw you Central NJ, we're putting a casino in North Jersey.
For that reason, I am voting NO!
If North Jersey Casinos fail to come true, then Sands will continue to get at least 50 buses a day from NYC...full of cash cows. Those cows can be redirected to Meadowlands Casino if you guys think harder for the better good of NJ.
Yet UKStages still thinks Revel will make it.
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/breaking/straub-still-lacks-city-permits-to-reopen-revel/article_656103e1-d356-5b6b-a1fe-471b705f8ce1.html
Quote: Mission146Maybe he named it, "TEN," because that is how many years it will take to reopen.
How much does it cost to maintain a building of that size? I'd imagine it is well into the six-figures every month.
You'd think they would be a little more motivated to get this renovation wrapped up.
Quote: gamerfreakHow much does it cost to maintain a building of that size? I'd imagine it is well into the six-figures every month.
You'd think they would be a little more motivated to get this renovation wrapped up.
When the Revel was built a power plant was built just to supply electricity to it. It was eventually bought by the new owners.
play.tenacnj.com
Quote: gamerfreakHow much does it cost to maintain a building of that size? I'd imagine it is well into the six-figures every month.
You'd think they would be a little more motivated to get this renovation wrapped up.
They're motivated, but the powers-that-be (Government) are allegedly not terribly motivated to work with Straub.
Quote: Mission146They're motivated, but the powers-that-be (Government) are allegedly not terribly motivated to work with Straub.
I wonder if there are any legitimate problems?
If he says he hates casinos so much, and that's the holdup anyway, couldn't he open it sans gaming in the meantime?
Quote: gamerfreakI wonder if there are any legitimate problems?
If he says he hates casinos so much, and that's the holdup anyway, couldn't he open it sans gaming in the meantime?
It's not that he hates them, he just doesn't want to operate the casino. The State does not want to approve it without an operator in place. I think it was in February he suggested he might open it without gaming until that got sorted out, but it didn't end up happening on the date he aid it would, or yet, for that matter.
It would probably get approved if he had a specific operator, but I assume that's something he's still working on.
I thought I read something where he claims he is not a fan of casinos due to some morality issues or something like that.Quote: Mission146It's not that he hates them, he just doesn't want to operate the casino. The State does not want to approve it without an operator in place. I think it was in February he suggested he might open it without gaming until that got sorted out, but it didn't end up happening on the date he aid it would, or yet, for that matter.
It would probably get approved if he had a specific operator, but I assume that's something he's still working on.
Who knows what this guy is really thinking.
Quote: AxelWolfI thought I read something where he claims he is not a fan of casinos due to some morality issues or something like that.
Who knows what this guy is really thinking.
That's basically true, and why he wants to find an operator. I think he also wants an experienced company to be handling casino ops which is, of course, a good decision. For whatever reason, the state wants him as well as the operator to have a gambling license, so that's another hang up.
Today is actually the two-year anniversary of the official sale to Straub, wonder how he's celebrating?
Quote: jerrysnjI hope I'm wrong but if he doesn't sell the property I could envision this being the largest implosion in Atlantic City history.
I believe I read somewhere there is huge value in stripping the steel so it would be more of a dismantling. But I agree, it could happen.
Straub bought Revel hoping to flip it. Since no buyer has emerged as of yet he is stuck with it.
HardRock propably could have purchased Revel for less then the 330 million+ they are spending on the Taj.
Revel has many design flaws for a casino. These flaws are not an easy fix.
Straub has gotten much free puplicity for his property.
Genius Acadamy, Syrian refugees, Rope courses, Water Park high speed ferry etc. But follow just what he has actually spent his money on, next to el zippo. He likes to rant and rave about licensing and other stumbling blocks. It is just bluster to keep his venture in the news.If he wanted to Revel could open in short order.
However, he knows full well that with a staff in excess of 2,500, Revel will probably loose more money open then sitting idle. It was estimated the building costs 1-1.5 million a month as it sits.
IMHO Revel will remain TALL DARK AND EMPTY for the foreseeable future.
I didn't think so. (-;Quote: dave12038457
Revel has many design flaws for a casino.
I have said it many times, the place was awesome, it's the only casino I truly ever thought was awesome.
The casino has a circular floor plan.Quote: dave12038457
Revel has many design flaws for a casino. These flaws are not an easy fix.
The first time I visited the casino, I decided to walk the casino floor to see what they had to offer. I started walking and ended up right where I started. I walked in a circle.
There was only one small restroom each for men and women. You had to leave the casino floor to use the restroom.
No water fountains.
The biggest flaw was that there was no buffet.
?????Quote: FatGeezus
There was only one small restroom each for men and women. You had to leave the casino floor to use the restroom.
.
Quote: HunterhillI Didn't like that there wasn't an entrance from the boardwalk.
what?!
was it an oversight?
what explanation did they give for this?
Quote: 100xOddswhat?!
was it an oversight?
what explanation did they give for this?
I think they did it to help keep the undesirables out,though they wouldn't publicly say that.
Quote: 100xOddswhat?!
was it an oversight?
what explanation did they give for this?
You could get into the building from the boardwalk, but still had to go up the elevator or escalator to get on the casino floor. With all the others you walk in off the boardwalk right into the casino.
The inconvenient part of the design was that it was a relatively long walk to get from the casino to the bank of elevators up to the rooms.
That said, I wish Hard Rock was moving into Revel instead of the Taj since it's so much newer and fresher.
Quote: FatGeezusThere was only one small restroom each for men and women. You had to leave the casino floor to use the restroom.]
Quote: AxelWolf?????
There was one restroom for the men in the casino. It had one urinal and one toilet. There was one restroom for the women in the casino. According to my wife it had two toilet stalls. Often there was a line to get in.
There were additional toilets for patrons but they were not in the casino. They were located on the same floor but outside the casino.
I could easily be mistaken, but I took Axel's "?????" not as doubting your post but as a slight joke on the wording. Suppose that "use the restroom" means to relieve oneself that that "leave the casino floor" did not mean to get on an elevator or escalator but just to get outside of the area where the tables and machines were located, as is often the usage. Perhaps Axel thought it both proper and amusing that one should poop somewhere else rather than on a crap table.Quote: FatGeezusYou had to leave the casino floor to use the restroom.
I guess "in the casino" is what I was confused about. The restroom I used was the one that had the long entrance that looked more like a club entrance than a restroom. I considered that to be in the casino. I thought it was near the players club, but I could have been mistaken. It was certainly on the same floor as the casino.Quote: FatGeezusThere was one restroom for the men in the casino. It had one urinal and one toilet. There was one restroom for the women in the casino. According to my wife it had two toilet stalls. Often there was a line to get in.
There were additional toilets for patrons but they were not in the casino. They were located on the same floor but outside the casino.
Quote: AxelWolfThe restroom I used was the one that had the long entrance that looked more like a club entrance than a restroom. I considered that to be in the casino.
Me too.... and that entrance was most certainly right off the casino floor.
The design of the casino and hotel is gorgeous, but it does have problems. The biggest problem is that it took forever to get to the casino floor from the hotel. I guess they figured that once you're in the hotel, they already had you. But what they didn't realize is that this was such an inconvenience to some that these customers would avoid booking rooms at Revel simply due to the walk.
This could be easily corrected by putting an elevator to the casino level closer to the rooms.
The second design problem is that the boardwalk-side entrance had a giant wall and the ugly valet parking area between the boardwalk and the Revel entrance. That needs to be changed by removing the wall and moving the valet.
Despite what the other poster says, there is no lack of bathrooms on the casino level and even if there were, that's trivial to fix.
HardRock is spending something close to 400 million to reincarnate/rebrand the Taj over the course of 1 1/2 years. They most certainly could have bought Revel for far less then their investment in the Taj property.
Revel is essentially a turnkey operation after licensing and staffing are done. Yet HardRock balked at buying Revel. Nobody doubts that it is a gorgeous property.
But gorgeous doesn't mean profitable in the casino industry.
There is a limited amount of gaming revenue to share amongst existing casinos. The re-opening of The Taj has knocked the feet out from under the hopes of re-opening Revel anytime soon. The pie isn't getting any bigger, only sliced in different ways...
No matter where you were, you had to walk a mile to get outdoors and far enough away from the property to smoke.
But the stupidest example was this: Near the hotel lobby was an area about 30' x 100' oval, which was an open air area but fully within the confines of the building. At one and it was a small bar, and the other end has a small stage area, plenty of seating and a couple fire pits.
In other words, it was designed as a smoking lounge, except it was no smoking. How screwed up is that?
By the way, I don't smoke. Never have.
Quote: DJTeddyBearI've said it before, and I'll say it again. One of their biggest problems was the no smoking policy. Not so much that it was no smoking indoors, but that they did not have easy access to outdoor smoking areas.
No matter where you were, you had to walk a mile to get outdoors and far enough away from the property to smoke.
But the stupidest example was this: Near the hotel lobby was an area about 30' x 100' oval, which was an open air area but fully within the confines of the building. At one and it was a small bar, and the other end has a small stage area, plenty of seating and a couple fire pits.
In other words, it was designed as a smoking lounge, except it was no smoking. How screwed up is that?
By the way, I don't smoke. Never have.
why should smokers have any expectation of smoking indoors, ever?
the problem wasn't that smokers had to make longs walks; it was that everyone had to make longs walks to get anywhere at that place.
ever been to the poker room? it was like finding a hidden cave at the top of a mountain.
It's really a matter of time though I believe, seems most jurisdictions that have legalized gambling within the last five years or so on non native land don't allow indoor smoking. (OH, MD?, NY, etc.) They seem to be doing well enough that the argument that making casinos go non smoking will hurt business doesn't really hold water, assuming a level playing field.
Small easily accessible outdoor smoking gambling areas are available at harrahs NO and HS Balt I believe, something like that or the smoking lounges that are in airports, that are comparable to the pathetic "non smoking gaming areas" available in some casinos.
Quote: sodawaterwhy should smokers have any expectation of smoking indoors, ever?
When you're a smoker and gambler in a market that consists entirely of casinos (besides Revel) that allow smoking, I would say.
The problem with Revel, ultimately, was that it failed to have revenues that exceeded its operating costs, much less operating costs plus debt load. There's more than one reason for that, but most of the reasons involve decisions that alienated or annoyed the existing AC customer base in an effort to create a market that did not exist and would not exist.
One of the decisions that alienated gamblers was having an entirely non-smoking casino in a market in which gamblers could smoke at all other locations. It's true that the long distance to get anywhere TO SMOKE didn't help, but you could make sure the gamblers are within 200 feet of somewhere where they could go out and smoke at all times and some of them still wouldn't be having that as compared to lighting up at the machine or the table.
It has also been mentioned that casinos, 'Do fine,' in markets in which everyone is on equal footing by being Legislated to be non-smoking. While that may be true, certainly some revenue is lost by way of not allowing smoking indoors because, if not, why would so many casinos choose to do it? Why would literally almost every casino in which it is allowed choose to allow it?
I think Revel could have survived as it opened in Las Vegas, I really think you have enough people in and out of the city for whom a 100% non-smoking property would be a big enough draw. Also, I do think that there is a market with whom the attitude of Kevin DeSanctis would have resonated, people keen on enjoying a, 'Better than you,' feel, but not enough of such a market in AC. Las Vegas, maybe, just by virtue of the fact that so many more people go to Las Vegas...though it would be even more difficult for Revel to try to position itself as THE elite property given how many truly impressive ones are already in Vegas.
Quote: Mission146. While that may be true, certainly some revenue is lost by way of not allowing smoking indoors because, if not, why would so many casinos choose to do it? Why would literally almost every casino in which it is allowed choose to allow it?
.
This logic is based on the fallacy that casinos are run by rational people making rational decisions. They, by in large, are not.
