MGM Springfield might end up getting unexpected support from Connecticut lawmaker Rep. Chris Perone who is in the process of introducing a new bill that wants a second market study done to get another opinion on how the state’s third casino will impact casino revenues, gambling taxes and employment opportunities.

The Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan Sun tribes decided to form a joint partnership and create MMCT, the company responsible for building the third casino in Connecticut. The company is currently in the process of choosing a possible site from four different locations to build Connecticut’s third casino which was approved in an effort to stop Connecticut’s gamblers from crossing state borders and going over to neighbouring state casinos such as MGM Springfield.

The two tribes had earlier funded a study which was carried out by Clyde Barrow, a well known casino consultant and political scientist who completed the market analysis and released a report to the public which stated that competition from neighbouring states would cost Connecticut 9,300 jobs, $100 million in state gaming taxes and over $700 million in gross gaming revenue.

However Perone does not want to solely rely on Barrow’s report and wants a second study to be done which also looks at widening the new casino location beyond the Hartford corridor and the I-91. Should the new study be commissioned, it would delay the construction of the new Connecticut casino as MMCT is still waiting on another legislation to be passed that approves construction to commence.

In a statement, Andrew Doba who serves as a representative of the MMCT said “Clyde Barrow, a respected academic who’s studied this issue for years, has already released a report that puts in specific detail the exact impact this will have on the state. If we do nothing, Connecticut will lose 9,300 jobs and more than $100 million in revenue.”

Barrow stated that he was surprised to learn that there were talks of conducting yet another study which he believed wouldn’t be very productive as it would come up with similar results as the first study. The MGM Springfield project is expected to be completed towards the end of 2018 and any delay to Connecticut’s third casino will prove to be beneficial to the MGM Springfield project as both casinos compete to capture market share.

MGM Springfield officials were not very happy when they learned that Connecticut had suddenly decided to license a third new casino. MGM Springfield was looking to capitalize on its proximity to Connecticut and expected to draw a significant amount of Connecticut’s gamblers to its facility.

One Response

  1. Steven Norton

    I certainly respect what Connecticut and the two Tribal casinos have been able to accomplish in casino resort development, job creation and State revenue contribution. But now, after enjoying a near casino monopoly in New England, CT and RI are now faced with the reality that nearby states have finally realized that casino benefits far outweigh the negatives, and are adding their own forms of gaming. In Connecticut’s decision to add an additional casino to soften the job loss, improve Tribal earnings and State financial contributions; I strongly question Hartford as the best location to achievee this. This sounds like a petty move, just to harm the new Massachusetts casino in Springfield, when a Hartford location will also harm Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods.
    A much superior site is available, one that would draw most of their customers from NY State, and have little impact on current CT casinos. Plus, the closest gaming competition is at a race track with slots, via crowded highways on the way to Manhattan. 3 major highway to CT, I-95, I-87 and the Merritt Parkway are all next to affluent Westchester Co. and close to others major NY population.
    CT should be saying thanks for the memories; for the $ billions that MA citizens have spent at its two Tribal casinos, and look for the CT location that will help the Tribes and State the most.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.