Hey, casino guys, can any of you multiply?

|
Posted on May 14 2014

Tag:
,
Share

Here you go again, Saipan. The mention of a $2 billion casino and everyone stats creaming their jeans. Since no one has flashed a picture of the Dubai Atlantis Hotel (1,600 rooms, $1.8B) or Macau’s Venetian Hotel/Casino (3,500 rooms, $2.4B), I doubt if anyone here understands what really huge buildings these are. I’ve been to the Venetian and it covers an area from the Hafadai to the Hyatt. About 6 million tourists visited Dubai and 28 million Macau. When someone invests $2 billion, or any amount actually, they demand a return-on-investment of 10 to 20 percent, which, if you can multiply, comes to between $200 million and $400 million per year. Multiplying further, 2,000 rooms, even at $200 per day X 100 percent occupancy every day of the year = $146 million. Even if every guest lost $200 every day at the casino that’s only another $146 million. Take out operating expenses and it is apparent that Saipan is being sold a load of crap. Infrastructure to handle 2,000 more rooms, additional flights if you can find the additional 250,000 people wanting to suddenly visit this hotel on Saipan, staffing, food and other essentials. Forget it.

The first increment will be a casino that looks like one of the “off the strip joints” in Las Vegas, big enough to lose money and launder money in and that’s about it. The $400,000 for “consultants”? What is that? Wouldn’t need those and surely don’t need ones from Macau, one of the most corrupt places on this planet earth. If someone in the government could just multiply.

Gary DuBrall
Chalan Piao, Saipan

Jun Dayao Dayao
This post is published under the Contributing Author. He/she does not normally work for Saipan Tribune but contributes for a specific topic or series.

Related Posts

Disclaimer: Comments are moderated. They will not appear immediately or even on the same day. Comments should be related to the topic. Off-topic comments would be deleted. Profanities are not allowed. Comments that are potentially libelous, inflammatory, or slanderous would be deleted.