Just because the New York Gaming Facility Location Board (GFLB) advanced all three downstate casino finalists Monday does not mean each will receive a licence.
In fact, the 30-page rationale the board released proved far more critical of the bids than the unanimous approvals would indicate.
After two months of deliberations behind closed doors, the board’s decision to greenlight all of the remaining applicants — Bally’s Bronx, Metropolitan Park and Resorts World NYC — means that all three could receive licences. However, there is no guarantee that the New York State Gaming Commission (NYSGC) will choose to do so. The commission has until 31 December to make that final ruling.
The GFLB’s evaluations were laid out in its rationale report. The board was perhaps hamstrung by the increasing need to award all three licences to maintain allotted funding the penciled in by the state. New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) in particular is counting on casino tax and licence revenue in future years.
But while the concise public announcement from the board garnered shouts of “shame on you!” from onlookers and skepticism from local media about “rubber stamping” the three applicants, the in-depth rationale was riddled with phrases like “disappointed” and “concerned”, with repeated calls to the NYSGC and local officials to hold bidders to their various commitments. This was especially true of hiring, diversity and community benefit pledges.
Overall, the board and its consultants projected that all licensees could produce $5.5 billion in gross gaming revenue by 2033, the projected market stabilisation year. This projection fell “in between the estimates provided by Applicants”, the rationale said.
Specifically, Bally’s projection was below the board’s, while Metropolitan Park’s was “closely aligned” and Resorts World’s “significantly exceeded the consultants’ estimate, primarily due to assumptions related to tourism and high-end play”.
Trouble for heavy favourite Resorts World?
Of the individual applicants, the board’s evaluation of Resorts World was arguably the most critical.
The existing video lottery terminal (VLT) facility has long been considered the strongest frontrunner for a New York casino licence because of its quick speed-to-market ability (projected for March 2026) and the aggressive tax rates it proposed. Resorts World proposed rates of 56% for slots and 30% for table games, while Bally’s pitched 30% and 10%, and Metropolitan Park pitched 25% and 10%.
Indeed, those two components “were determinative factors in the Board’s decision to recommend Resorts World to the Commission for consideration of a license”, the rationale said.
Yet the board poked several holes in the details of the bid, including the tax rates. Once other bidders’ numbers were made public, Resorts World reportedly asked that its rates be lowered to match those of other applicants if approved. This was met with clear objection from board members.
“The Board’s recommendation that Resorts World New York City be considered by the N.Y.S. Gaming Commission for a license is based upon the tax rates it bid, not on the lower rates it now would like to apply,” the document said.
Resorts World’s aggressive slot and table counts were also not accepted, per the rationale. The facility proposed 6,000 slots and 780 tables, but “its illustration of gaming configurations showed only 4,635 slots and 534 tables”, so the board recommended licensure at that lower number “to ensure the quality of visitors’ experience”.
Potential issues with benefit pledges and integrity
The overall cost of the project and associated commitments is pegged at $7.5 billion, with Resorts World’s investment listed at $3.3 billion.
But the board “was disappointed that only 1 percent of the investment is projected to benefit firms in Queens — that extremely low rate should be improved”. This is perhaps surprising given the facility’s longstanding track record in Queens and its unanimous support in the community input stage.
Resorts World has announced a litany of community benefits and programs, but their exact value was hard for the board to evaluate. Both of the other applicants listed precise benefit dollar amounts in the rationale, unlike Resorts World. A primary reason for this, the board said, was that some of the commitments were “tied to land not owned or controlled by Resorts World”.
“The Board views the discussion with the Community Advisory Committee of vague benefits that are extremely conjectural as inappropriately confusing, and urges the Commission and the elected officials involved in the Community Advisory Committee to find ways to hold Resorts World to the spirit of those benefits regardless of all the contingencies.”
Of the finalists, Resorts World has the most applicable development experience. Its parent company Genting has built three $1 billion-plus US casinos and two $5 billion-plus Asian casinos. Yet the board noted that Genting has a “history of projects delivered late or over budget”.
Finally, Resorts World failed to disclose fines against all three of its existing New York casino properties, including the proposed downstate site. It did disclose the $10.5 million anti-money laundering (AML) fine against its Las Vegas Strip casino, but it did not provide details.
“The Board views this lack of transparency as concerning and recommends that the Commission weigh this in its licensing evaluation,” the rationale said.
Bally’s hiring, golf course viewed as strengths
The description of the Bally’s proposal, by contrast, was less critical, though some concerns were raised. On the positive side, Bally’s hiring and diversity commitments were “key factors” that led to its recommendation. The Bronx has long been the lowest-rated socioeconomic borough in New York City and the Bally’s project would be the biggest private investment in its history.
The inclusion of a golf course amenity in particular also “convinced the Board that the Bally’s proposal was a strong complement to the other proposed facilities, and would bring significant tax revenues to New York State and City”.
There was little mention of Bally’s finances, which are perhaps the most uncertain of the bidders. The operator grew tremendously in recent years by maneuvering debt and stretching its leverage to the limit.
While the board viewed Bally’s as a “highly leveraged, non-investment-grade entity”, it said, “the company’s available assets and liquidity options support its equity investment in the project”. Bally’s investment is tabbed at $2.3 billion, out of $4 billion total cost. Those figures are far above its most-comparable project, an under-construction $1.8 billion Chicago casino. As such, the board said Bally’s “has limited experience with large greenfield development” and a “mixed” execution record.
Notably, the rationale document said that Bally’s Bronx had “significant backing from a large real estate investment trust”, most likely a reference to Gaming and Leisure Properties (GLPI). GLPI financed much of Bally’s growth in recent years, including the Chicago project. That firm did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Concerns related to parking garages, internal diversity
The board also questioned the potential value of the Bally’s benefits package. A valuation estimate of $765 million “may be overstated”, members said, given that some money would not start flowing until the project is complete. Current projections call for a mid-2030 opening.
Additionally, consultants suggested that the facility’s parking structure was problematic. It listed “complicated vehicle and pedestrian circulation”, a “suboptimal” employee parking ramp and an “unusual and aesthetically suboptimal” large screen over the garages. The rationale did note, though, that these elements still can be changed.
While Bally’s external diversity commitments were applauded, information about its internal diversity was criticised. The race of more than 36% of executive leadership was reported as “non-specified”. The rationale said that was “not an acceptable response, and the Board expects more diverse executive leadership for the Bronx project”.
Hard Rock, Cohen viewed as stable New York casino candidates
Metropolitan Park’s analysis seemed the least critical of the three. Both Hard Rock and its partner, New York Mets owner Steve Cohen, were viewed as solid, well-funded candidates. The overall project cost is listed at $8.1 billion, with a capital investment of $5.3 billion.
“Hard Rock’s global brand and entertainment partnerships are expected to differentiate the property in the New York City market and drive visitation,” the board said. “The proposed location, next to Citi Field, the Billie Jean King Tennis Center, and the planned new Etihad Park soccer stadium will situate the casino within what is already a strong entertainment district.”
Some last-minute intrigue came in late November when the US Tennis Association filed suit against the city over lease violations related to the project and its relationship to the tennis center. This was reportedly resolved with a new agreement with the city, however, and was not mentioned in the rationale.
With regard to finances and development experience, Hard Rock “presents a strong development track record” with its array of Florida casinos and other ongoing projects. The operator has “substantial liquidity and financial strength to provide equity and project support”, and Cohen also has “substantial financial resources”, the board said. Forbes estimates Cohen’s net worth to be among the highest in the world at $23 billion.
Hard Rock was the only applicant to provide data on its problem gambling programs, though this data “appeared limited”. In any case, Bally’s and Resorts World “provided only general responses”, per the rationale.
Regulators show concern for traffic, benefits
The two chief criticisms of Metropolitan Park were similar to problems cited with the other two New York casino bids: parking and benefit values.
The new casino project would replace existing surface parking lots at the Mets’ Citi Field. Board members expressed concern for the new proposed solutions and urged “continued monitoring and adjustment of traffic plans during construction and facility operation”. Certain environmental aspects were also criticised, including stormwater management. This particular point was also noted for the other two applicants.
As with the Resorts World proposal, board members were somewhat unconvinced about the project’s community benefit commitments. The rationale noted the partners did not include concrete agreements for funding key promises like affordable housing units and the “Flushing SkyPark” it proposed.
“Those projects accordingly were not considered in the Board’s evaluation, but were raised during the Community Advisory Committee process, and the Board recommends to the Commission that the Applicant’s license require those projects to be completed,” board members said.
Jess Marquez
Jess has covered the global gaming industry since 2022. A native of Reno, Nevada, he’d like to note that it’s Ne-va-da, not Ne-VAH-da.
All three New York casino finalists were approved to advance this week, but the underlying analysis showed a number of concerns with the bids.