Headwaters Resort & Casino (Proposed)

[vdogg]

The name is not terrible, but it's not great either, which seems to be a common theme with this project. It's almost militant in it's okayness. That said, they need to do some work on that logo. I don't know if I'm walking into a casino or a real estate office.

[baobabs727]

17 hours ago, Qdeathstar said:

 

the management that run the casinos can certainly be bought. It’s fine if the ownership is inexperienced as long as they have good people running the operation. 

HeadWaters isn’t  terrible name....

Yeah, tell that to the Redskins the past couple decades. Fact is, you're only as good as your ownership...no matter the Industry.

 

[Qdeathstar]

8 hours ago, baobabs727 said:

Yeah, tell that to the Redskins the past couple decades. Fact is, you're only as good as your ownership...no matter the Industry.

 

Danny was a hands on owner. He’s the reason we draftEd rg3....

[baobabs727]

17 hours ago, Qdeathstar said:

Danny was a hands on owner. He’s the reason we draftEd rg3....

Yes, and that was the problem: Too “hands on” and no expertise.  I think it’s safe to say that you find yourself in the very, very, very slim minority of opinion of Redskin’s fans (or even basic NFL fans) who think Dan was a good owner. Dan was a micromanager who often exercised poor judgment and made many, many mistakes over his tenure. The results speak for themselves.  Feel free to compare his record in playoff appearances, wins and Super Bowl titles to the record of the prior owner, Jack Kent Cooke.  Not even close! And that’s because, unlike Dan, Mr. Cooke actually had many years of prior professional sports team ownership experience, listened to his Coach and GM ...and then stroked the checks. Anyway, enough about football., but the analogy stands. Ownership (and experience) is key. 

Edited May 6, 2021 by baobabs727

[BFG]

Dan let Marty Schottenheimer go after one 8-8 season, and has only seen limited success since. And until he steps out the way and let his coaches coach, it'll be more of the same.

I say this as a Cowboys fan, so now I'll sit down.

[Qdeathstar]

8 hours ago, baobabs727 said:

Yes, and that was the problem: Too “hands on” and no expertise.  I think it’s safe to say that you find yourself in the very, very, very slim minority of opinion of Redskin’s fans (or even basic NFL fans) who think Dan was a good owner. Dan was a micromanager who often exercised poor judgment and made many, many mistakes over his tenure. The results speak for themselves.  Feel free to compare his record in playoff appearances, wins and Super Bowl titles to the record of the prior owner, Jack Kent Cooke.  Not even close! And that’s because, unlike Dan, Mr. Cooke actually had many years of prior professional sports team ownership experience, listened to his Coach and GM ...and then stroked the checks. Anyway, enough about football., but the analogy stands. Ownership (and experience) is key. 

I never said he was a good owner. You used him has an example of an inexperienced owner, however I think the example is irrelevant and can’t be used to make blanket conclusions about the amount of experience money bags has to have in order to operate a successful casino.

 

 If Danny boy was hands free (in more ways that one)  and allowed experienced others to do their job (which is what I am suggest the pamunky do) he could have had a better outcome. So can the casino.

Edited May 7, 2021 by Qdeathstar

[Norf Native]

 From the Pilot today (regarding the Portsmouth Casino but will affect Norfolk's too):

At a Lottery Board meeting April 21, Kevin Hall, executive director of the lottery, said he expected to open the operator license application process “in a matter of weeks.” Vetting the applications involves “in-depth financial and criminal background investigations” and could take up to a year, Hall said.

Along with the license application process, the lottery board is working on regulations. Meanwhile, casino projects are in the works in Portsmouth, Norfolk, Richmond, Danville and Bristol. Speaking to the Lottery Board, Hall compared the situation to building an airplane as it’s in the air.

[BFG]

Cordish's suit is on again, although it feels like sour grapes from Cordish. Perhaps upset that Waterside is underwhelming?

https://www.pilotonline.com/news/vp-nw-norfolk-casino-lawsuit-cordish-20210617-tyvhbvdbi5fftlnbduqny2bqyi-story.html

Edited June 17, 2021 by BFG

[Arctic_Tern]

I'm kinda glad that that proposed waterside tower never went through. Cordish is not being a good corporate community member. This reeks of desperation. 

[baobabs727]

I’m willing to be more circumspect about this ...at least until I am able to read the lawsuit and the original contract with the City. 

[Qdeathstar]

I think cordish probably has a good case. If there was an agreement it should pretty clear in the contract. I think Norfolk had planned to so this the federal route with the Indians and then once Virginia allowed commercial casinos Norfolk like :-|

[HRVT]

1 hour ago, NFKjeff said:

According to a story I heard on WHRO this AM, Cordish is seeking $100M in damages from the city. Cordish is claiming that City Attorney Pishko had a personal stake in the negotiations with the Pamunkey Tribe. We shall see. If the city sees it as a lost cause I suppose they would rather seek a settlement than to get it caught up it litigation.

Who knows. But after how things went in Hampton, I still don't know why people were enamored with Cordish.

[vdogg]

Meh. This whole thing is a cash grab, nothing more. Cordish never, not once, indicated any intention of building a casino until after the Pamunkey had jumped through all the hoops and done the hard work and gotten themselves approved. This lawsuit belongs in the trash.

[BFG]

I wonder if the city gives Cordish his tower on the old annex space, to make it even?

[vdogg]

13 hours ago, BFG said:

I wonder if the city gives Cordish his tower on the old annex space, to make it even?

Whatever the outcome of the lawsuit, I think the relationship between Cordish and Norfolk is over.

[Arctic_Tern]

On 6/17/2021 at 11:01 PM, Qdeathstar said:

I think cordish probably has a good case. If there was an agreement it should pretty clear in the contract. I think Norfolk had planned to so this the federal route with the Indians and then once Virginia allowed commercial casinos Norfolk like :-|

Thing is if I were a betting man I'd say that they probably don't have a great case, and are just trying to force the City of Norfolk to hand over millions of dollars to make them go away. I'm guessing that they had conversations about a Casino with Pishko, and maybe Pishko even said the city would help. But I would be flabbergasted if there was one drop of ink on a contract that actually said so. If there was, this lawsuit wouldn't be happening now. They're just going for something along the lines of "Pishko misrepresented what the city intended in discussions with Cordish" which is why so much of this has been focused on Pishko, and not any actual contract verbage.

[baobabs727]

I read the Complaint. I have not read the contract. Here are some excerpts from the Complaint and with references to the contract therein.  Now we await the Defendant's Answer.

Edited June 20, 2021 by baobabs727

[carolinaboy]

Deal with "casino type" people, get "casino type" problems. Everyone should have known but were too enamored with the "glitz and glamor" of a stupid casino in a town that didn't need it. The only positive outcome in this would be that no casino is built anywhere in Norfolk so you don't have to deal with the long-term problems.

 

[vdogg]

18 hours ago, baobabs727 said:

I read the Complaint. I have not read the contract. Here are some excerpts from the Complaint and with references to the contract therein.  Now we await the Defendant's Answer.

I don’t see anything ironclad in this other than an agreement to “help”. They’re also using a very liberal interpretation of the word “subsidy”, as no monetary contribution of any kind has been given by Norfolk to the Pamunkey (not by land or anything else, the Pamunkey bought that land). Do not fall for the “we’ve always wanted the casino” bs. If that were their true intention, then they would have  asked for an injunction against the casino construction and a dissolution of the existing contract, they did not.  All they want is money, this a cash grab plain and simple. And I fail to see how they think that  trying to bleed $100 million from a cash strapped city is a valid course of action when trying to expand your business in said locale. No way they get $100 million, they simply can’t justify that even if they do succeed in the lawsuit. The actual monetary value that they get from this will be far far less if they’re successful.

[BFG]

I know a casino was speculated back in 2015-16, when Waterside underwent the renovations, but was that ever set in stone? At the time, that would've required a massive undertaking from the General Assembly since it wasn't a private company instead of a Native American tribe. Cordish is assuming a lot in thinking that Waterside or anywhere else in Virginia would've gotten a casino five years ago.

[baobabs727]

3 hours ago, vdogg said:

I don’t see anything ironclad in this other than an agreement to “help”. They’re also using a very liberal interpretation of the word “subsidy”, as no monetary contribution of any kind has been given by Norfolk to the Pamunkey (not by land or anything else, the Pamunkey bought that land). Do not fall for the “we’ve always wanted the casino” bs. If that were their true intention, then they would have  asked for an injunction against the casino construction and a dissolution of the existing contract, they did not.  All they want is money, this a cash grab plain and simple. And I fail to see how they think that  trying to bleed $100 million from a cash strapped city is a valid course of action when trying to expand your business in said locale. No way they get $100 million, they simply can’t justify that even if they do succeed in the lawsuit. The actual monetary value that they get from this will be far far less if they’re successful.

At this juncture, I make no comment. I make no assumptions. Additionally, I make no judgments on anyone else’s assumptions or conclusions. 

A plaintiff’s filing is a one-sided affair by nature. We have yet to hear from the City.  Should be interesting. 

By the way, I also do not assume that either party de facto has clean hands. 

Edited June 21, 2021 by baobabs727

[baobabs727]

6 hours ago, carolinaboy said:

Deal with "casino type" people, get "casino type" problems. Everyone should have known but were too enamored with the "glitz and glamor" of a stupid casino in a town that didn't need it. The only positive outcome in this would be that no casino is built anywhere in Norfolk so you don't have to deal with the long-term problems.

 

Wow lol. What’s with all of this high-handed moral preening? Not the first time you’ve expressed such strong views in opposition to legalized gambling. Are these religion-based objections? 

[carolinaboy]

15 hours ago, baobabs727 said:

Wow lol. What’s with all of this high-handed moral preening? Not the first time you’ve expressed such strong views in opposition to legalized gambling. Are these religion-based objections? 

high-handed moral preening

I don't even know what this means.

such strong views in opposition to legalized gambling

It's not the gambling I'm worried about.

Are these religion-based objections? 

No, but would it be OK with you if it were? I wasn't aware I needed your approval for my opinion on such matters.

[baobabs727]

12 hours ago, carolinaboy said:

high-handed moral preening

I don't even know what this means.

such strong views in opposition to legalized gambling

It's not the gambling I'm worried about.

Are these religion-based objections? 

No, but would it be OK with you if it were? I wasn't aware I needed your approval for my opinion on such matters.

Lol

OK so you’re worried ...about...?  The people who would be gambling? The people who would hang around the people who would be gambling?

Why of course it would be OK! My goodness. :-)  I’m simply intellectually curious by nature. Trying to understand you and your position, that’s all.  Seeing if you might flesh out some of your ideas here.  (Participation is entirely optional, of course.) 

Edited June 23, 2021 by baobabs727

[Qdeathstar]

On 6/21/2021 at 9:23 AM, carolinaboy said:

Deal with "casino type" people, get "casino type" problems. Everyone should have known but were too enamored with the "glitz and glamor" of a stupid casino in a town that didn't need it. The only positive outcome in this would be that no casino is built anywhere in Norfolk so you don't have to deal with the long-term problems.

 

Have you every been to a casino?