Comments on: Billion-dollar musing in the LVBP

By: Paul Shanahan

Paul Shanahan — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 19:45:35 +0000

I really like what Planet Hollywood did with both the inside and the outside of the casino (those big LED screens out front) once they purchased the Aladdin out of bankruptcy in June of 2003. It took a long time and obviously way to much money but I thought it turned out really good.

Now the “vulture” Harrahs swoops in and gets a great deal on Planet Hollywood and if they do get it I think they will put the “Horseshoe” brand name on it like the American Gaming Guru mentions above. Harrahs should finish the Octavius Tower over at Caesars Palace before they buy Planet Hollywood but CEO Gary Loveman seems to be able to do whatever he wants in Las Vegas even though his company is billions and billions of dollars in debt.

By: American Gaming Guru

American Gaming Guru — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:47:38 +0000

Dr. Dave, The one thing I like about this transaction is that I actually like what PH did with the re-model. The fault in the PH equation was that while they purchased the property for a good price, they certainly spent too much on its rehab and rebrand which current business levels do not support. If Harrah’s can get this well positioned and newly reinvigorated property at an appropriate debt level, then hey, why not go after it! Add on top of that economies of scale, which PH does not have, and Harrahs may be able to make this deal really work favorably for them. Arthur Goldberg first thought of it and I believe his intention for a Bally’s, Paris, Aladdin/PH line up would have worked well then and can certainly benefit Harrah’s now.

On a side note, I said this on another website. Just for fun…Imagine the strip’s first “Horseshoe” directly across from City Center? A legendary name in gaming stares across the street at what some have called gaming’s future.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:06:53 +0000

^^^
The bricks do outlast the contract, but not always to their builder’s benefit–Bob Stupak and the Strat is a good example. I think the OEM model is pretty strange, but it seems to be popular, and it’s curious that Harrah’s is eschewing it, even though they’ve had their nose bloodied in their attempts to build/buy in foreign markets (particularly Slovenia).

By: FoolsGold

FoolsGold — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:00:38 +0000

>Its a totally different company.
A transformation not voted on by shareholders and probably not fully disclosed to the board initially.
Management contracts can be voided, litigated to death or can simply expire. Assets are owned. Perhaps the tangible asset is less favored on Wall Street than the imagined cash flow from the contract but bricks tend to outlast the contract to polish them.
Ofcourse Harrahs or whatever their real name is did accomplish this transformation by fully earning its nickname of Evil Empire and its business model focuses large on shearing the sheep rather than valuing informed gamblers.