MGM and Foxwoods to Discontinue Licensing Deal
MGM and sprawling Connecticut casino Foxwoods announced jointly on Monday that they would be discontinuing a licensing deal, which will result in the removal of the MGM name from a hotel tower at the property that was erected five years ago, reports MassLive.com.
That agreement was initially inked back in 2006 and was motivated by MGM’s desire to increase its brand recognition in the Eastern region of the United States, according to the report.
MGM’s Massachusetts plan behind the change
MGM has decided to end its licensing agreement with Foxwoods because it wants to eliminate any potential confusion that could arise from the company’s proposed casino plan in neighboring Massachusetts, where, if approved by state regulators, it intends to construct a Las Vegas-style casino resort in the city of Springfield.
Springfield, in the western region of Massachusetts, is one of two metropolitan areas for which a casino license will be issued sometime next year, most likely in April.
For its part, tribal-owned Foxwoods says that the scrubbing of MGM’s name from its Connecticut property will be a step forward as it seeks to make changes in advance of casino expansion in Massachusetts. Casinos in Connecticut, including the Mohegan Sun, are already anticipating a decline in both revenue and visitors when new resort casinos open in nearby Massachusetts.
As a result, both Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun have announced plans to upgrade retail, dining, and entertainment options in a bid to retain customers.
“When we looked at the master plan for the resort and our current opportunities, it was obvious that the iconic brand of Foxwoods needed to be at the forefront of our transformation,” said Foxwoods CEO and president Scott Butera.
Massachusetts licensing process has received lots of attention
Massachusetts gaming officials plan to hand down two licenses for large casinos that one might expect to more readily encounter in Nevada than in New England in addition to one for a slots only gambling parlor.
In addition to the Western Massachusetts license, one will be issued for Boston, where Wynn and Suffolk Downs are facing off to gain the sole casino license that will be granted there.
Wynn, which intends to construct a $1.2 billion casino resort on a polluted parcel of land facing the Mystic River in Everett, won overwhelming support from area voters in a public referendum held last June. If approved, Wynn has promised not only to clean up the contaminated land on which it plans to site its resort, but also to build the most luxurious hotel in the Boston area.
Wynn competitor Suffolk Downs looking for new partner with Caesars exit
Meanwhile the other major contender in Boston, Suffolk Downs, last week lost its casino partner when Caesars Entertainment was forced to walk away from their partnership deal after Massachusetts officials uncovered unsavory dealings related to organized crime figures connected to a redevelopment project, now scrapped, that would have seen the old Bill’s Gamblin’ Hall on the Las Vegas Strip transformed into a luxury hotel branded after a New York property, the Gansevoort.
Suffolk Downs has not yet been approved in a public vote, something that is required of all Massachusetts casino applicants. Despite Caesars’ exit, the vote will go on and is set to take place next week on November 5. Suffolk Downs, a historic East Boston racetrack that originally opened back in 1935, is seeking a new casino partner as it attempts to move forward with its plan to develop a $1 billion casino at its existing site.
The new Massachusetts casinos are expected to be open sometime in 2015, according to state regulators, who said last week that it could take up to 30 months from the time licenses are issued for construction to be completed on the new properties.
