Flynn Clarifies Resort Casino Earnings
Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. Senior Vice President of Gaming Larry Flynn has penned an open letter stating that the resort casinos in the province are earning money, not losing it.
Flynn's letter, which appears in the Hamilton Spectator. Flynn states that, combined, OLG resort casinos "earned more than $1.28-billion for the six years ended March 31, 2012, not a combined loss of $360 million over the same time period."
Flynn's comments have come in light of previous reports published by the Hamilton Spectator.
In his letter, Flynn wrote:
In OLG's financial statements, there is a line identified as 'Win Contribution.' Under the OLGC Act, OLG is required to remit to the government, each week, 20 per cent of the gross gaming revenue (that is revenue before expenses) from the Resort Casinos and the Great Blue Heron slot facility. In other words, the Win Contribution appears in our financial statements as an expense against the resorts, but for the provincial treasury, this is income and appears on the positive side of its accounting ledger. This is a unique reporting element in OLG's financial statements which is approved by accounting audit experts.
In his letter, Flynn states that the OLG has "acknowledged the resorts and our other border facilities have had their difficulties over the last decade," and further states that "OLG is working with the government to ensure that horse racing is integrated with the provincial gaming strategy to ensure future revenue streams for that industry."
(With files from the Hamilton Spectator)
Easier said then done Will.
Easier said then done Will. When you are dealing with 2 tiers of government (provincial and municipal) and the municipal having last say you have problems.
What this government is going through now is the same the PC's went through 14 years ago. Hamilton and Toronto had referendums then and they both voted against casino's. You are not going to put a business on the premises of an existing business and not expect to pay a fee, which was called SARP back then. I think Will that you agree that if I moved into your house you would expect that I pay something. But the bottom line is the government did not have any choice BUT to put it at tracks. It was the only location municipalities would allow them.
The unfortunate part is that it became more lucrative to host slots then to host horseracing. Six new tracks were built so that they could host slots. B.t.w. the provincial government controls tracks by issuing licences for them and they were more then happy to issue them for slots as long as you had horse racing of some kind.
Anyways I am not condoning the actions of the tracks but my point is we were driven to this situation by a government that was greedy and acted irresponsibly. When you take an animal from the wild and start feeding it and housing it you basicaly take away all of it's survival instincts to the point where you can't release it back in the wild because it can't survive. The industry is at that point now. If the government wants to create jobs then they should fund it otherwise let it collapse and deal with unemployment bankruptcy's and worthless farmland.
Of course Mr. Flynn would say
Of course Mr. Flynn would say that they are making money. It's easy to show a profit where one doesn't exist if you have good accoutants which I'm sure they do being part of the government. Where is that graph showing the declining profits of the casinos (riding in the red) compared to the growth of the SLOTS profits?
Sars was giving the gov't 1.1
Sars was giving the gov't 1.1 b per year not over 6 yrs. as were the gaming casinos. Also track slots gave 75% to gov't - no comparison.
In reply to Sars was giving the gov't 1.1 by teesh
Ms Martin, do you not think
Ms Martin, do you not think if the slots moved to a different location, be it a bingo hall, casino, or the bars (like Quebec has).... the figure will decrease? No. It will stay the same, which begs to ask the question, if they move the slots, and make the same money they are now, why do they need to include horseman and give them chunks of the profits?
Harness racing needs to boost its end on the wagering and show the government that they can survive on the their own, without slots, or not be so dependent. That is the argument that justifies them moving the slots.
Do not be fooled and think horse racing contributed to the amount that the slots generated. They were gonna make that money regardless where slots were.
BEFORE EXPENSES. The losses
BEFORE EXPENSES. The losses will accure after the EXPENSES. Everybody on the golden ladder will profit except the TAX PAYER.