A skeptical leftist's, or post-capitalist's, or eco-socialist's blog, including skepticism about leftism (and related things under other labels), but even more about other issues of politics. Free of duopoly and minor party ties. Also, a skeptical look at Gnu Atheism, religion, social sciences, more.
Note: Labels can help describe people but should never be used to pin them to an anthill.
As seen at Washington Babylon and other fine establishments
There's a great piece in the Monthly about how Tim Dunn punked Miriam Adelson
on casino gambling. Can't they share a red heifer, spotless and without
blemish, and make it all up? In reality, as I've said before, Danny
Goeb will NEVER see a casino bill in the Texas Senate that he likes, and
he'll surely get re-elected next year, which means Adelson will have to
wait until at least the 2031 Lege to win this thing.
So this?
There
is little doubt about what Sands wants. It sold its last U.S. property
in 2022. Its six casinos are all in Asia. Texas is the company’s path
back home. In 2020, Abboud told a conference that the state was “the
biggest plum still waiting” to be plucked “in the history of hospitality
and gaming.” Worth an estimated $32 billion, Adelson is betting that
limitless cash can overcome any opposition. It’s a long game, with
immense profits as the reward, one that her most ardent enemies admit
may pay off someday.
Ain't gonna happen for years to
come. Indeed, the story goes on to say that the Sands/Adelman overkill
effort may have driven the cause backward.
That said, the piece is also good for noting that, contra Goeb and Dunn, gambling was here in Tex-ass long ago:
Twenty
miles southwest of Irving, a citadel of vice stands atop one of the
highest points in Arlington. In the 1930s and ’40s, Top O’Hill Terrace
served as an illegal home for gambling, booze, and prostitution—“Vegas
before Vegas,” some have called it. Its patrons were among the most
famous celebrities and businesspeople of the day: Mae West, Howard
Hughes, oilman H. L. Hunt, and even Bonnie and Clyde. High stakes were
leavened by fine entertainment: Ginger Rogers, Benny Goodman, and Ruth
Laird’s Texas Rockets all performed at the club.
Interestingly,
the piece does not mention the glory days of Jacksboro Highway, which I
believe had gambling along with whores and the mob, probably because
nobody that famous ever went there.
Meanwhile, if Adelson and son-in-law Patrick Dumont pull out, can they sell the Mavericks, too?
The Texas Lottery isn't dead, but the Lottery Commission is.
Also dead, in case nobody this side of Miriam Adelson has figured out
that Dannie Goeb's statement every two years at the start of a Lege
session that "he hasn't seen a gaming bill that he likes," is the
chances of casino gambling in Tex-ass as long as he's Lite Guv.
So,
Miriam and son-in-law Patrick Dumont, if that's why you bought the
Dallas Mavs, that's a big fat fucking fail second only to letting Nico
Harrison keep his job.
Now, that's if Strangeabbott signs the bill.
If
not, per the Sunset Commission and lack of funding for the Lottery
Commission in the budget bill, the Lottery itself is also dead.
And, if Adelson and Dumont believe any different, I've got an honest Bibi Netanyahu ceasefire for sale. Or a red heifer without blemish.
At a minimum, per this LA Times piece, Shohei Ohtani looks like a naive sucker for his blind trust in body man/Man Friday/interpreter Ippei Mizuhara.
At a maximum, per this story linked within that first one, especially its second half, detailing how much Ohtani both 'lawyered up" AND "PR agencied up" after the news first broke, after he and Mizuhara both started to change their stories, but well before his no questions asked presser, it seems he is still hiding things.
Yes, Ohtani has a large penchant for privacy in the US. And, his bombshell wedding announcement seems to indicate that is true of him in general. Such penchant could either easily leave him a mark for suckers, or else be a good tool for nefariousness.
Next question is how much, or how little, cooperation will "hunk of metal" Rob Manfred get out of Ohtani? Question after that is, if the answer there is "little to none," what does Manfred do next?
Various environmental groups called on the feds to investigate TCEQ over water quality issues, and the EPA says an informal review is underway.
Living in a major wind farm area, it's easy to think that Chapter 313 was a big boon to that industry. Truth? It was a much bigger boon to the awl bidness.
"Latinx" is a bad enough, #woke in the bad sense, academia-driven neologism. I just threw up in my mouth over "Chicanx," Texas Observer. I stopped reading and your link gets a no-follow. (Among actual politicians who hate "Latinx" is Arizona Congresscritter and possible Senate candidate Ruben Gallego.)
Tex-ass has lethal injection drugs that have gone past their expiration date but still wants to use them. State lawyers for the Department of Criminal Justice have been shady in supporting this issue, but — shock me — the Court of Criminal Appeals has sided with them so far.
Speaking of death, James Harry Reyos, convicted of murder 40 years ago, may finally get his rightful due in court.
SocraticGadfly, from up on the Red, for various reasons doubts the Lege will give people casinos or even a casino constitutional amendment vote.
The Trib talks about casinos and sports betting both looking for legalization from the Lege this year. It says the two are operating on parallel tracks and may even conflict with one another, if/when push comes to shove.
Strangely, it doesn't mention one headwind casinos could face.
Oklahoma.
Specifically, Oklahoma Indians. Living not too far from Winstar, and not real far from the Choctaw site in Durant, and having been by both the Kiowa and Apache casinos across the river from Wichita Falls, there's a lot of gold in them thar casinos that the Oklahoma tribes don't want to lose. The furthest west casinos aren't real far from Lubbock or Amarillo, and the furthest east not too far from Texarkana, so North Texas is blanketed. In addition, Far West Texas/Trans-Pecos can hit the Mescalaro casino near Ruidoso, and there's some Indian and other gaming in Louisiana, not really far away.
That said, the Chickasaws, owners of WinStar and many of the others closest to Texas, do also own Lone Star Park in Arlington, and are amenable to casino gambling in Texas if one of the casino sites .... could be wrapped with the racetrack. Feb. 3, the tribe indicated its support for the Sands (Sheldon Adelman family) and its casino push. Fort Worth Rep. Charlie Geren has parlayed that into a push to put casinos before the Texas public on a constitutional amendment vote. Geren's bill is interesting in other ways.
If I were a betting man (heh, heh), I'd offer 2-1 against sports betting (which isn't that bad, given it's Tex-ass), but still 5-1 or more against casinos. Kuff, reading the same story yesterday, semi-hangs his hat on the possibility of Lois Cockwhore (thanks, Brains) filing a gambling bill in the Senate. Per the Trib piece that's for sports betting, not casinos.
Or sometimes far worse than a crapshoot, so to speak.
ESPN reminds us that (even as the NFL celebrates the centennial of its founding), baseball is at the centennial of the 1919 Black Sox scandal. It mentions that to raise the question: "Could it happen today"?
It adds that this is the 30th anniversary of Bart Giamatti booting Pete Rose for betting on games. (I still think there's some chance he bet AGAINST his own Reds, and that John Dowd may have asked him that. Or Dowd may have feared the answer, and deliberately did NOT ask.)
It also adds that, after fighting gambling outside of Vegas, MLB has made Mandalay Bay among its new gaming partners — a place where Pete Rose autographs swag.
Of course Vegas ain't heavy, even if Sin City is corny:
And, per Kevin Costner, one person is identified with that more than anybody, even though not the ringleader and totally opposite Rose in personality. I'm talking Shoeless Joe Jackson, of course.
Beyond whether Shoeless Joe Jackson helped do it or not, there's the question of whether MLB isn't hypocritical, on him, or on Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, as I've discussed before.Paul Hornung and Alex Karras are in Canton despite admitting gambling on football. Art Schlichter also admitted betting on games. None of the three ever bet on their own team, though. (Of course, no set of NFL players has ever been caught allegedly throwing a title game. And, given that football is a one-game showdown, AND given that there's massive amounts of prop bets on today's Super Bowl, I would think that's hellaciously tempting.)
So, why do we still "pick on" Shoeless Joe, and even more than Rose?
Jackson was proven innocent in a court of law, as his own granddaughter notes at the top link.
The Black Sox in general, because this was so early in organized sport, and organized sport was trying to become more professional after the Great War, were a target. Plus, baseball was the National Pastime. City College of New York point-shaving scandals hurt that game somewhat, but everybody moved on.
That said, as John Thorn notes, many myths still abound about the Black Sox. That includes that they were underpaid (actually, the highest paid team in baseball), that they were rubes taken for a ride by gambling sharks (not true in general, and note Cobb and Speaker above, representing just a tip of alleged game-fixing at this time), and that Shoeless Joe was just a country bumpkin (actually, he had good post-baseball business career).
On PBS, Jacob Pomrenke, in addition to refuting more myths, wonders if other pre-1919 WS were fixed. I addressed that in Part 2.) Pomremke, a member of SABR, chairs a committee it has just over the Black Sox. Here's a list of all his research.
As for Jackson? Like his granddaughter, as I note in this long piece, I don't think he did it. But, I'm not sure, either, per Thorn and Pomrenke. Per my Part 1, I'm leaning more toward him being guilty again, and explain there how he could have had such a great World Series and still be guilty.
And, because of that, Jackson should be made eligible for the Hall, and then voted into Cooperstown, if there's at least the strong likelihood he didn't do it.
He's got the cred.
Despite his career being forcibly ended at age 32, he's 13 in JAWS among right fielders, as I note at that link. Give him four more years, and he's at around 90 WAR. Around 70 on JAWS. Right next to Al Kaline and Roberto Clemente, at a minimum.
As for Rose? Nope.
I disagree with the Bob Ryans, per the Red Satan link, who want to put him in. MLB had express prohibitions then, as it does today, which it didn't at Jackson's time. And, despite MLB looking hypocritical, other pro sports ban their players from wagering on their own sports, let alone their own teams as well. The added issue was that Rose was not just a player, but a player-manager, and could monkey with daily lineups to the longer-term detriment of his team.
Now, the $64,000 question. Or two, actually.
One? Could it happen?
Two? Would it happen?
No. 1? Yes. Despite computers seeing sudden shifts in betting lines, could you actually find enough to stop a game before it started? Very likely not. There's examples in pro tennis, of suspicions being confirmed quickly afterward, but not during a match.
Could you vacate a title? Well, cheating to win, maybe. But, cheating to lose? No, the Cincinnati Reds are still listed as 1919 World Series winners.
No. 2? Possible. But likely? Contra a Boston cop quoted in that piece, no.
First, when you can make an extra $100-150K or whatever for winning the World Series rather than losing it, plus, even as a bit player, maybe a bit more in commercial endorsements, you'd have to be offered a lot of money to throw it. And, as with the original Black Sox, you'd have to have several players involved. And, unlike a tennis match, something probably would leak out before it got done.
That said, although the NBA has pretended otherwise, who's to say that Tim Donaghy wasn't shading calls in playoff games as well as the regular season? Donaghy himself claimed the league got refs to fix the highly controversial Game 6 of the Lakers-Kings Western Conference finals.
If you don't recall, the Lakers shot 21-27 at the free-throw line in the fourth quarter versus 7-9 for the Kings. Per the link above, Mike Bibby was called for a defensive foul on an offensive foul by Kobe Bryant, while both Vlade Divac and Scott Pollard fouled out, being called for defensive fouls every time the Diesel dropped his shoulder.
On the other hand, just like the 1985 St. Louis Cardinals after Don Denkinger's blown call (and why has nobody alleged a fix there?!?!?!!?) the Lakers and Kings had a Game 7. Had Chris Webber not reverted to the same deer in the headlights fear of failure that led him to call a non-existent timeout as a Michigan Wolverine, maybe the Kings win anyway.
And, it's not just players, or managers, or referees. Think of Deflategate and Tom Brady's footballs. Or the person sneaking into the Giants locker room to steal Eli Manning's helmet. There's people making a lot less money than refs, let alone players or coaches, who could be "turned" and who could have the ability to do something.
Or hangers-on of various sorts. And not just cheating to lose, but simply using inside information.
Like, say, Rich Paul, LeBron James' agent and more. Let's say it's Game 7, Western Conference finals, against Kawhi Leonard and the Clips. Bron sprained his ankle in Game 6, and for the public, and even within the team, everybody is saying, "he's good." But, Rich knows differently. And bets on it. Both directly and through others. Or Kawhi's Uncle Dennis.
Is that cheating? No, not by NBA standards. At that moment.
What if Bron or the Klaw find out? Then, IMO, if they don't report, it is cheating.
College hoops, with the betting money of March Madness and the one-and-done nature of the tournament, would be more rife to fixing, especially since college athletes aren't paid. Note Hot Rod Williams and his regular season college point shaving and way back in the 1980s. Or further back, Kentucky All-Americans Alex Groza and Ralph Beard, eventually discovered after they were in the NBA.
===
In summary, some thoughts.
First, players are paid way too much to be gotten to throw a game. And, pretty much, managers.
So, it's going to be officials, team support personnel or player hangers-on that are going to try to use poor officiating, in the first case, access to equipment in the second, or manipulation of information, in the third, to cheat in various ways — though the third may not involve throwing games.
Second, by its nature, basketball is probably the easiest of the three sports to fix. Football, even though it has more players, with its quarterback focus, comes second, but it's behind basketball because you can't risk being too obvious. Baseball is third. Also, basketball probably makes it the easiest sport for fixing by ref.
Third, college sports, especially college hoops, offers more temptation than pro sports. There, players come into the picture.
Fourth, replacing officials with robots and cams (most feasible in baseball) won't help. The robot programmers can be bribed or the programs can be hacked.
In part 1 of my series (part 3 is coming) about the centennial of the 1919 Chicago Black Sox, I focus on the guilt, or not, of Shoeless Joe Jackson.
That said, I noted that there's allegations of Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker conspiring to fix games.
And they're not alone. Not by any means. But how un-alone are they?
On PBS, Jacob Pomrenke, in addition to refuting myths about Shoeless Joe in particular and the Black Sox' Eight Men Out in general, wonders if other World Series before 1919 were rigged. Pomremke, a member of SABR, chairs a committee it has just over the Black Sox. Here's a list of all his research.
Among other alleged fixers, he mentions Hal Chase. His career, per an old ESPN piece, unofficially was ended in ... wait for it, wait for it ...
1919! He also was booted later from the Pacific Coast League for trying to bribe an ump.
That said, Chase did not play on either of the two pre-1919 World Series that first stick out to me as possibly being thrown. (Note: I've changed my mind on the second, and looked at two more.)
Crosstown rival Chicago White Sox! The Sox were known as the "Hitless Wonders" and deemed to have no chance in advance.
That said, that was arguably less a shock than the 1914 World Series, where first-time entrant Boston Braves not only beat, but swept, the heavily favored Philadelphia A's.
Here, unlike one of the myths about the Black Sox and Charles Comiskey that Pomrenke refutes, A's owner-manager Connie Mack, despite his team having the so-called "$100,000 infield," was known as being tight on salaries.
There's no smoking gun, but Mack himself allegedly "wondered." However, per great discussion at this baseball forum, there's plenty of myth the other way there. Mack only traded one top-level player after 1914. A couple of others jumped to the Federal League and that was that. As far as Mack being tight with money? Shibe Park was an undersized bandbox. Philly baseball would have been served by the Phillies turning over the Baker Bowl to the NFL Iggles only, and both Philly baseball teams sharing a new baseball stadium.
Further interesting? One of the Braves players was ... Johnny Evers!
That said, Wiki notes in an article on MLB scandals that some suspicions attached to the 1917 and 1918 affairs.
1918, which saw the Cubs lose to the Red Sox, has long drawn suspicions of a fix. This piece by BoSox blogger and book author Allan Wood has a lot of the details, including fingering Cubs pitcher Gene Packard. It notes that players faced tiny shared revenue from a condensed-season, attendance-shrunken World War I year, as far as temptation. It wasn't just overall numbers down with a shortened season. 1918 had the lowest per-game attendance in the 20th century. And they were being forced to share their shares with the other six teams of the two leagues' "upper divisions." (This later became the norm.) This piece also has 1919 games-throwing expert Eddie Cicotte claiming the Cubs had been paid to lose in 1918.
I don't know if he was given a formal ban at some point, but Packard also last pitched in ... 1919!
Shortstop Charlie Hollocher also drew suspicion from Hugh Fullerton, the first major sportswriter to smell a rat in 1919 as well. I'm less inclined to believe this one, though. Hollocher was a rookie in 1918, which would be another way of explaining his fielding mistakes. He knew nothing about AL players. That said, the fact that he was under suspicion shows where the game was at by this time. Also, even though the Cubbies had a better team WAR, the BoSox had won it all in 1915 and 1916. The fact that 1918 was believed to have been thrown by many sportswriters? Once again, shows you where baseball was at by this time.
The year before? 1917? It's drawn somewhat less ink, but it is under a cloud of one player, at least. Heinie Zimmerman was eventually banned from MLB, at the same time as Chase, on general suspicion from the 1917 Series. Wiki notes he chased Eddie Collins across home plate in a botched rundown in the final game of the 1917 tilt. Per Wiki's piece on that Series, catcher Bill Rariden expected either pitcher Rube Benton or first baseman Walter Hoike to be backing him up in the rundown and neither did.
John McGraw tried to absolve Zimmerman, but reportedly, Zim probably could have caught Collins himself before he got to home.
That said, THIS plot comes full circle, too. McGraw reportedly believed that various members of his 1919 team conspired to throw the 1919 NL title to the Reds. He mentioned Chase by name. He also mentions pitcher Jean Dubuc, who was on the 1918 BoSox, and who reportedly heard details about the 1919 Black Sox fix. I find this one also hard to believe. The Giants ended nine games behind the Reds, who, per the 1919 NL season, simply appear to be the better team. Plus, throwing an entire season would be a big deal.
I had somewhat known some of this before. I hadn't really read about 1918 before, but I did know about 1914 vague suspicions, and more on 1917. But, I never thought to draw one connection.
And that's that the losing 1919 Black Sox had learned tips on how to throw games, and who to talk to to get paid for that, from the team they beat two years earlier, the Giants. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
And, there's the sidebar of for three straight years, one of the other of the two Chicago teams was being claimed to either be in on the fix, in 1918 and 1919, or benefiting from it, in 1917.
In addition, even though the 1918 Red Sox won, two of their pitchers, Bullet Joe Bush and Carl Mays, remained under suspicion, or came under suspicion in later years. Both made their next stop with the Bronx Bombers. Again according to Wood, Jake Ruppert allegedly told Fred Lieb that he thought both of them had thrown World Series games. Maybe. Or maybe the Colonel was a butt-hurt owner just like John McGraw was a butt-hurt manager. Or maybe a sportswriter was spinning a yarn. Both Bush and Mays stuck around until the late 1920s, something unlikely in the Landis era if they had any actual taint.
And, one other loop back around. Bullet Joe was on Mack's 1914 A's. But, he wasn't traded until after the 1917 season, though Mack did get money as well as players back in the multiplayer trade.
So, there you have it. Certainly in the 1910s, even if the Hitless Wonders of 1906 weren't gifted with a title, suspicions abounded and for good reason. By 1920, the Black Sox of 1919 looked to be a trend, and with America cleaning up under Prohibition, baseball needed to clean up, for PR.
My final take?
1919: Obviously thrown
1918: Possibly thrown
1917: Possibly thrown
1914: Probably not; claims based on overrating the A's and Mack myth
1906: Who knows, but interesting, isn't it?
Part 3 is next, Could it happen today? And not just baseball.
Winning a World Series is a crapshoot, at times. As a Birds fan, I'll offer up 1986 and David Eckstein's Cardinals.
Sometimes its far worse than a crapshoot, so to speak.
This is the 100th anniversary of the Chicago Black Sox, or eight members of that team, at least, reportedly throwing the 1919 World Series.
It's also the 30th anniversary of the heart-tug movie "Field of Dreams" and its effort to either set the truth straight or else whitewash it:
And, per Kevin Costner, one person is identified with that more than anybody, even though not the ringleader and totally opposite Rose in personality. I'm talking Shoeless Joe Jackson, of course.
So, why do we still "pick on" Shoeless Joe, and even more than Pete Rose?
Jackson was proven innocent in a court of law, as his own granddaughter notes in discussing the centennial with ESPN.
Beyond whether Shoeless Joe helped do it or not, there's the question of whether MLB isn't hypocritical, on him, or on Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, as I've discussed before. And, within baseball, there's three managers named Tony La Russa, Joe Torre and Bobby Cox who likely knew some of their players, including Bonds and Clemens, plus Gary Sheffield and Mark McGwire, were "helping themselves." And, there's allegations of Ty Cobb (not a racist, as far as that part of morals, apparently, legends to the side) and Tris Speaker conspiring to fix games.
The Black Sox in general, because this was so early in organized sport, and organized sport was trying to become more professional after the Great War, were a target. That's both as in a target for the eventual Judge Landis crackdown but at the same time, with Prohibition starting and the Roaring 20s around the corner, a target for gaming and cheating. Plus, baseball was the National Pastime. City College of New York point-shaving scandals hurt that game somewhat, but everybody moved on. More on both parts of the "target" come near the end.
As for Jackson? Like his granddaughter, as I note in this long piece, I don't think he did it. Well, so I thought at the time, which was four years before this piece.
But ... but ... but ...
That said, as John Thorn notes, many myths still abound about the Black Sox. That includes that they were underpaid (actually, the highest paid team in baseball), that they were rubes taken for a ride by gambling sharks (not true in general, and note Cobb and Speaker above, representing just a tip of alleged game-fixing at this time), and that Shoeless Joe was just a country bumpkin (actually, he had good post-baseball business career). And, contra Shoeless Joe's granddaughter, Thorn says that on the legal angle, the jury basically bought the angle peddled by "Field of Dreams" and committed jury nullification. Some might argue that Thorn, as official historian of MLB, has a reason to take this angle.
And now, Don Van Natta, amplifying Thorn, says that Shoeless Joe, by being dead, is NOT on baseball's ineligible list any longer. Meaning? The Early Baseball era incarnation of the Hall of Fame's old Veterans Committee meets in December. It could vote for Jackson if it chose, despite both MLB and Cooperstown no-commenting, in essence, to Van Natta.
But?
On PBS, Jacob Pomrenke, in addition to refuting more myths, wonders if other pre-1919 WS were fixed. I'm addressing that in Part 2.) Pomremke, a member of SABR, chairs a committee it has just over the Black Sox. Here's a list of all his research.
So now, per Thorn and Pomrenke, I'm not so sure about Shoeless Joe.
As for the Black Sox in general? Per a sublink off Pomrenke's research, a few years ago, incredible and incredibly rare tape was found of selected highlights of Game 3 (first) then Game 1. And per that, it don't look good overall. Per Pomrenke, go to 3:06 in the video; note the brief GIF on the website for further looks at a blown double play started by pitcher Eddie Cicotte and ending with first baseman Chick Gandil that made many suspect the fix was in, then Cicottegetting (letting himself?) get knocked out of the box. At the end of that sequence, about 3:45, is the infamous play of Cicotte cutting off Jackson's throw to the plate. That's a play that's cited both for the other seven of the eight cheating but also, the quality of the throw plus Jackson's .375 BA for the Series, as evidence of his innocence.
IF ... he didn't do it? Jackson should be made eligible for the Hall, and then voted into Cooperstown, if there's at least the strong likelihood he didn't do it.
He's got the cred.
Despite his career being forcibly ended at age 32, he's 13 in JAWS among right fielders, as I note at that link. Give him four more years, and he's at around 90 WAR. Around 70 on JAWS. Right next to Al Kaline and Roberto Clemente, at a minimum.
But, did he or didn't he? Seems more gray than ever. Pomranke and Thorn both lean yes on Shoeless Joe and all eight, and marshal their evidence better than Keith Law.
And, even his good performance could square with cheating. Maybe the adrenaline kicked in and he performed on autopilot. Maybe he had a guilty conscience, or fear of getting caught, enough to pull back. Maybe, even, he was a designated cutout, to do better than normal while the others cheated, to try to put people off the scent.
The biggest part is that the players went looking, rather than the gamblers starting by soliciting them.
Final thought? Could such a scandal happen today? Before you say "no," read my Part 3.
Given that gambling in general can become, if not addictive, a clearly compulsive behavior, the possible future of sports betting sounds .... interesting.
Instant betting on sports? During the game? Yes, Les Carpenter is surely right -- it could be addictive indeed.
Tropicana the gaming giant, and not Tropicana the orange juice giant, has filed Chapter 11. Luck be a fickle, scorned and spurned lady.
New Jersey gaming regulators stripped Tropicana’s Atlantic City casino of its operating license in December, when the New Jersey Casino Control Commission determined that Tropicana was incapable of running a "first-class operation" required by state law and stripped it of its casino license after less than a year. prompting a cash flow problem that eventually forced the bankruptcy.
But the problems started before that, and reflect that even the gaming industry is starting to have recession-related problems:
When it bought Aztar Corp. for $2.1 billion after a heated bidding war, the company unwittingly violated a fundamental principle of business — buying high just before the market fell.
Using tactics it had successfully employed elsewhere, management began cost-cutting measures including nearly 1,000 layoffs in Atlantic City, prompting an uproar from unions.
A slowing national economy made gamblers more cautious about parting with their money, and real estate values plummeted as well. Then credit markets tightened, leaving Tropicana Entertainment “very little margin for error,” Tropicana President Scott Butera wrote in court filings. The company simply could not afford any significant setbacks, he added.
The company suffered a huge setback with the loss of the Atlantic City casino license. The company is appealing the license denial, but the bidding process is well under way and a new owner could be selected within a few weeks.
The company will receive the proceeds from the sale but is worried that a forced sale in a bad economy will result in a depressed price.
It is already selling its Evansville and Vicksburg casinos to help reduce its debt and could decide to sell other assets as the restructuring process unfolds, Butera said.
Any company dumb enough or arrogant enough to think it could stiff unions in New Jersey deserves the corporate butt-kicking. Unfortunately, employees, including those unionized ones in New Jersey, will suffer.
And, it makes me wonder if this isn’t part of why the casino commission yanked the license in the first place. Not that Joisey government folks would ever play hardball on something like this, would they?
The larger picture leads me to wonder if companies like Tropicana have much in the way of the equivalent to subprime mortgage debt on their books.
Ditto for strip malls that have been built in the last five years to add new outlets for places like the now-bankrupt Bombay and Linens ’n Things.
