DOCSLIB.ORG

Sportech Annual Report and Accounts 2015 Accounts and Report Annual Sportech PLC 101 Wigmore Street London W1U 1QU

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sportech Annual Report and Accounts 2015 Accounts and Report Annual Sportech PLC 101 Wigmore Street London W1U 1QU Sportech PLC Sportech PLC Annual Report and Accounts 2015 Annual Report and Accounts 2015 A WORLD LEADER IN POOL BETTING Welcome to our Annual Report 2015 Sportech is one of the largest pool betting operators and technology suppliers in the world, with international reach and a presence in over 30 countries. What’s inside this report Strategic report Corporate governance Financial statements 01 Highlights of the year 20 Chairman’s statement 64 Consolidated income statement 02 Overview 22 Board of Directors 65 Consolidated statement 04 Chief Executive’s review 23 Senior management of comprehensive income/ 08 KPIs 24 Corporate governance report (expense) 09 Financial review 32 Report of the Remuneration 66 Statements of changes in equity 14 Principal risks Committee 67 Balance sheets 18 Corporate social 33 Remuneration report 68 Statements of cash flows responsibility report 52 Directors’ report 69 Accounting policies 55 Independent Auditors’ report 78 Notes to the financial statements 114 Shareholder and corporate information Sportech PLC Annual Report and Accounts 2015 01 Strategic report Corporate governance Highlights of the year Financial statements Investment in technology drives progress Group highlights – Results in line with expectations with EBITDA of £23.1m (2014: £24.0m) – Balance sheet strengthened with net debt down by 10% – Investment in technology delivering new international customers – Expansion into providing lottery products for professional sports teams – Football Pools division nearing completion of modernisation programme – Expansion of venues strategy into California – Disposal of online interests in New Jersey for a pre-tax gain of £8.1m – £97m VAT refund appeal to be held in Court of Appeal on 7/8 April 2016 Divisional highlights Sportech – EBITDA growth of £0.5m to £8.6m (2014: £8.1m) Racing and – Continued investment in technology attracting new international Digital customers and successful installation of new hardware and software for Betfred (Totepool) – Opening of office in Asia delivering benefits with new contracts Sportech – EBITDA of £2.8m (2014: £3.2m), affected by the previously Venues highlighted severe winter weather in Connecticut and year-long closure for refurbishment of a key Jai Alai venue – Officially opened on 28 January 2016 the only sports bar, restaurant and betting venue in San Diego – Discussions continue regarding expanded gaming (slots) in Connecticut Football – EBITDA of £15.2m (2014: £16.6m) in line with expectations Pools – Ongoing improvements in technology platforms and processes – The division is now set for stability and growth 02 Sportech PLC Annual Report and Accounts 2015 Overview Sportech at a glance Sportech Racing and Digital Sportech Venues Football Pools We are starting to see the results of our technological investments across the Group, with the modernisation of the Football Pools division, new contracts in the US and Asia and the expansion of customers for Bump 50:50. We look forward to a year of growth in 2016. Roger Withers Chairman Supplier of tote equipment, services Operator of betting on racing in venues Operator of pools betting predominantly and software both on and off-track and online across Connecticut and the through subscription and online channels. (online and mobile). The division also Netherlands. New venue opened in includes Bump 50:50, our professional California in 2015. sports charitable lotteries business. Division information The division is the largest supplier of tote The division operates brands Winners 300,000 customers playing a range of pools based technology and services to the global (Connecticut), Striders (California) and and instant win games every week racing industry and has expanded into Runnerz (the Netherlands) sports charitable lotteries Location US, Canada, UK and Ireland US (Connecticut and California) UK and the Netherlands Customers Worldwide Connecticut, California and the Netherlands Predominantly UK Divisional Revenue EBITDA Revenue EBITDA Revenue EBITDA performance £34.6m £8.6m £32.7m £2.8m £33.8m £15.2m Contribution to Group revenue 34% 33% 33% Sportech PLC Annual Report and Accounts 2015 03 Strategic report Corporate governance Financial statements Sportech Racing and Digital Sportech Venues Football Pools We are starting to see the results of our technological investments across the Group, with the modernisation of the Football Pools division, new contracts in the US and Asia and the expansion of customers for Bump 50:50. We look forward to a year of growth in 2016. Roger Withers Chairman Supplier of tote equipment, services Operator of betting on racing in venues Operator of pools betting predominantly and software both on and off-track and online across Connecticut and the through subscription and online channels. (online and mobile). The division also Netherlands. New venue opened in includes Bump 50:50, our professional California in 2015. sports charitable lotteries business. Division information The division is the largest supplier of tote The division operates brands Winners 300,000 customers playing a range of pools based technology and services to the global (Connecticut), Striders (California) and and instant win games every week racing industry and has expanded into Runnerz (the Netherlands) sports charitable lotteries Location US, Canada, UK and Ireland US (Connecticut and California) UK and the Netherlands Customers Worldwide Connecticut, California and the Netherlands Predominantly UK Divisional Revenue EBITDA Revenue EBITDA Revenue EBITDA performance £34.6m £8.6m £32.7m £2.8m £33.8m £15.2m Contribution to Group revenue 34% 33% 33% 04 Sportech PLC Annual Report and Accounts 2015 Chief Executive’s review Positioning Sportech as one of the leaders in the global betting market Overview Sportech is one of the world’s leading pool betting operators and technology suppliers, focused on highly regulated markets worldwide. The Group comprises three divisions: Racing and Digital, Venues and The Football Pools. Both the Racing and Digital division (which processes $13bn bets annually) and the Venues division (which operates legal betting exclusively and in perpetuity in Connecticut in venues, online and mobile on horseracing and The Group has reached an important stage greyhounds) are based in the US and Canada where we employ 630 people across field in its development, as our US businesses operations and four corporate offices. We are make continued progress on many fronts, licensed by gaming regulators in 28 US States. and our UK Football Pools business arrives The Football Pools is based in the UK, at the inflection point of expected stability and is the oldest football gaming business after years of modernisation. in the world. Group highlights – Results in line with expectations with EBITDA of £23.1m (2014: £24.0m) – Balance sheet strengthened with Business model net debt down by 10% – Investment in technology delivering new international customers – Expansion into providing lottery products for professional sports teams Technology Stabilise – Football Pools division nearing completion Implement technology Stabilise and to drive operational grow EBITDA of modernisation programme performance – Expansion of venues strategy into California – Disposal of online interests in New Jersey Sportech The Racing Football for a pre-tax gain of £8.1m nsib and po il Pools More s it e y – £97m VAT refund appeal to be held in Digital contracts R Court of Appeal on 7/8 April 2016 E x More t s C p s u e contracts r a r We have invested substantial time into e t T i i s s with greater e t h margins i n developing our activities and licensing f l u o t w r position in the US. During the year, we sold o f p r o Sportech Venues p our iGaming interest in New Jersey, realising o m e a threefold return on our investment after c r o u r t e Continue Enhance u only three months of operation. f b venue roll out profitability e u v s ri in Based on licences Enhance profitability d We continue to evaluate opportunities e in CT and CA from existing and t s n se future ventures ri to deliver the full potential of our divisions s p , s ot tr fo whilst ensuring we maintain prudent financial en y gt or h o lat ratios. In this regard, over the past twelve f e egu xisti nd r Opportunities ng relationships a Opportunities months we have considered approaches for iGaming and sports Grow a trusted brand the Group as well as for The Football Pools. betting as regulation permits Opportunities New venues, online, mobile and slots Sportech PLC Annual Report and Accounts 2015 05 Strategic report Corporate governance Financial statements Despite this, we have remained focused Bump 50:50 provides in-stadia electronic on our operations and we will continue to lotteries to professional sports teams. investigate any proposals that recognise Since acquiring the business in late 2014, the value of the inherent potential of these we have grown the seven contracts the businesses. We look forward to moving into business had at that time to 21, with new a year of growth in 2016. customers including teams from the NHL, NBA, NFL, Nascar, MLS and the Canadian Sportech Racing and Digital F1 Grand Prix. 2016 has already seen the Sportech entered the market in the US five launch of the first 50/50 lottery in the State years ago, and has substantially developed of Texas and the launch of the first-ever its technology, gaming products and licensing online raffles, providing fans of the Colorado position over that time. Avalanche, Denver Nuggets, Colorado Mammoth and Colorado Rapids, the chance In 2015, we have seen the benefits of our to play on PC, tablet and mobile, as well as significant investment in improving our in-stadia. Under Sportech’s ownership, Bump systems with the deployment of new 50:50 is forecast to make profits for the first hardware and software to Betfred’s Totepool time in 2016.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 3: Pathological and Problem Gamblers in the United States The
    Chapter 3: Pathological And Problem Gamblers In The United States The perception of increased pathological and problem gambling is currently driving interest and concern among policymakers, treatment professionals, industry officials, gambling researchers, and the public. Data describing the extent of pathological and problem gambling are useful for many purposes, including planning public health services and medical services. This chapter discusses the prevalence of pathological and problem gamblers among the general U.S. population and specific subpopulations. As limited by the available data, the discussion is often framed in terms of the proportion of pathological and problem gamblers reported in studies of U.S. residents. Of particular concern is determining prevalence among reportedly vulnerable demographic groups, such as men, adolescents, the poor, the elderly, and minorities (including American Indians). We also attempt to examine trends in relation to the increased availability of legal gambling opportunities in the last decade. This chapter also makes comparisons with the prevalence rates of alcohol and drug abusers, to help put the magnitude of excessive gambling and related problems into perspective. LIMITATIONS OF PREVALENCE RESEARCH In Chapter 2 we described the difficulties involved in defining and measuring pathological gambling using various assessment instruments. Here it is important to note that comparing and interpreting prevalence findings is problematic when different studies use different screening and/or diagnostic instruments or criterion levels to measure differing levels of intemperate gambling and associated problems. Unfortunately, such differences are common in the research literature on pathological and problem gambling (Volberg, 1998b) which creates problems in estimating prevalence rates in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Casino Development: How Would Casinos Affect New England's
    C Horn C A Symposium Sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Robert Tannenwald, Editor Special Report No. 2 Published in October 1995 Preface / iii Welcome and introduction / v Cathy E. Minehan Panel I: impact on income and Jobs The extent to which casino development fosters the economic growth of a state or local area has been vigorously debated. What evidence of the economic effects of casino development do we have, based on both theory and empirical research? What can New England ]earn from regions where casinos are more widespread? What are the methodological issues in estimating casinos’ impact on jobs and income? Introduction Robert Tannenwa]d The Impact of Casino Gambling on income and Jobs / 3 Ear] L. Grino]s Gambling and the Law®: Endless Fields of Dreams® I. Nelson Rose indian Gaming’s impact on income and Jobs / 47 S. Timothy Wapato High=Stakes Casinos and Economic Growth / 52 Arthur W. Wright Panel ll: Implica~ons for Public Sector Revenues Casinos pay substantial taxes and fees to state and local governments. What is the optimal way to tax casinos? To what extent do taxes and fees collected from casinos displace public revenue generated by other forms of state-sponsored gambling, such as lotteries and parimutuel betting? Do revenues from casino taxes displace revenues from sales taxes? Who ultimately bears the burden of casino taxes? introduction / 59 Gary S. Sasse The Promise of Public Revenue from Casinos Charles T. Clotfelter Steven D. Gold Finances: The Case of New Jersey / 74 Ran3ana G. Madhusudhan Perspective of the Treasurer of Massachusetts / 87 The Honorable Joseph D.
    [Show full text]
  • Hedging Your Bets: Is Fantasy Sports Betting Insurance Really ‘Insurance’?
    HEDGING YOUR BETS: IS FANTASY SPORTS BETTING INSURANCE REALLY ‘INSURANCE’? Haley A. Hinton* I. INTRODUCTION Sports betting is an animal of both the past and the future: it goes through the ebbs and flows of federal and state regulations and provides both positive and negative repercussions to society. While opponents note the adverse effects of sports betting on the integrity of professional and collegiate sporting events and gambling habits, proponents point to massive public interest, the benefits to state economies, and the embracement among many professional sports leagues. Fantasy sports gaming has engaged people from all walks of life and created its own culture and industry by allowing participants to manage their own fictional professional teams from home. Sports betting insurance—particularly fantasy sports insurance which protects participants in the event of a fantasy athlete’s injury—has prompted a new question in insurance law: is fantasy sports insurance really “insurance?” This question is especially prevalent in Connecticut—a state that has contemplated legalizing sports betting and recognizes the carve out for legalized fantasy sports games. Because fantasy sports insurance—such as the coverage underwritten by Fantasy Player Protect and Rotosurance—satisfy the elements of insurance, fantasy sports insurance must be regulated accordingly. In addition, the Connecticut legislature must take an active role in considering what it means for fantasy participants to “hedge their bets:” carefully balancing public policy with potential economic benefits. * B.A. Political Science and Law, Science, and Technology in the Accelerated Program in Law, University of Connecticut (CT) (2019). J.D. Candidate, May 2021, University of Connecticut School of Law; Editor-in-Chief, Volume 27, Connecticut Insurance Law Journal.
    [Show full text]
  • The Casino Debate in Massachusetts
    University of Massachusetts Boston ScholarWorks at UMass Boston Financial Services Forum Publications Financial Services Forum 4-1-2011 Dice or No Dice: The aC sino Debate in Massachusetts College of Management, University of Massachusetts Boston Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.umb.edu/financialforum_pubs Part of the Economics Commons, Gaming and Casino Operations Management Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation College of Management, University of Massachusetts Boston, "Dice or No Dice: The asinoC Debate in Massachusetts" (2011). Financial Services Forum Publications. Paper 28. http://scholarworks.umb.edu/financialforum_pubs/28 This Research Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Financial Services Forum at ScholarWorks at UMass Boston. It has been accepted for inclusion in Financial Services Forum Publications by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at UMass Boston. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Spring 2011 Report Dice or No Dice: The Casino Debate in Massachusetts Dice or No Dice: The Casino Debate in Massachusetts University of Massachusetts Boston, College of Management Financial Services Forum Spring 2011 Report [1] Spring 2011 Report Dice or No Dice: The Casino Debate in Massachusetts Welcome to the UMASS – Boston, College of Management, Financial Services Forum’s 2011 Report on the casino debate in Massachusetts. The debate on casinos has intensified over the last few years. Governor Deval Patrick tried to get approval for three casinos back in September 2008, which was rejected by the then Speaker Salvatore Dimasi. However, two years ago, the Governor stood in the way of casinos by vetoing the bill passed by the House and the Senate.
    [Show full text]
  • The Social and Economic Impacts of Gambling
    1 2011 THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF GAMBLING Robert J. Williams, Ph.D. Professor, Faculty of Health Sciences, and Coordinator, Alberta Gaming Research Institute University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada Jürgen Rehm, Ph.D. Director, Social and Epidemiological Research Department, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), Toronto, Canada Senior Scientist and Co-Head, Section Public Health and Regulatory Policies, CAMH, Toronto, Canada Professor and Chair, Addiction Policy, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto (UoT), Canada Professor, Dept. of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, UoT, Canada Head, Epidemiological Research Unit, Technische Universität Dresden, Klinische Psychologie & Psychotherapie, Dresden, Germany Rhys M.G. Stevens, M.L.I.S. Librarian, Alberta Gaming Research Institute University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada FINAL REPORT PREPARED FOR THE CANADIAN CONSORTIUM FOR GAMBLING RESEARCH 3/11/2011 2 Citation Williams, R.J., Rehm, J., & Stevens, R.M.G. (2011). The Social and Economic Impacts of Gambling. Final Report prepared for the Canadian Consortium for Gambling Research. March 11, 2011. http://hdl.handle.net/10133/1286 The following are the members of the Canadian Consortium for Gambling Research: Alberta Gaming Research Institute Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse Gaming Policy and Enforcement Branch of British Columbia Manitoba Gaming Control Commission Ministère de la Sante et des Services Sociaux du Québec Gambling Awareness Foundation of Nova Scotia Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre Contact Information Dr. Robert J. Williams Professor, Faculty of Health Sciences & Coordinator, Alberta Gaming Research Institute 3017 Markin Hall University of Lethbridge Lethbridge, Alberta Canada; T1K 3M4 403-382-7128 (phone) [email protected] Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Ten Reasons to Oppose Expanding Casino Gambling to Hartford Or Fairfield Counties
    Ten Reasons to Oppose Expanding Casino Gambling To Hartford or Fairfield Counties 1. Societal Costs. Opening a casino in either Hartford County or Fairfield County would dramatically expand casino gambling in Connecticut, leading to an increase in gambling addiction and the problems that accompany it. According to the UConn School of Medicine, the growing gambling epidemic is hitting lower socioeconomic groups the hardest and the resulting societal costs are being borne by employers, law enforcement, social welfare agencies, and the health care system. 2. Economic Costs. A Hartford area convenience casino would target Connecticut residents, while a Fairfield County casino’s potential for drawing New Yorkers has declined greatly with the opening of three machine gambling casinos in Metropolitan New York. As a result, the taxes and jobs produced by a Hartford or Fairfield County casino would be paid for overwhelmingly by the gambling losses of Connecticut residents, leaving them with less to spend on other areas of the state’s economy and, according to economists, merely redistributing existing money within the state without creating economic growth. 3. Compact Costs. Permitting the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan Tribes to open an off- reservation casino could trigger a provision of the state-tribal compact under which the tribes would no longer have to pay the state 25% of their slot machine revenue. Allowing anyone other than the tribes to open a casino in Connecticut would automatically end tribal slot payments to the state. 4. Timing. With the Northeast facing a growing casino glut, this is the worst possible time for Connecticut to up its bet on the casino industry.
    [Show full text]
  • Policy Brief Summary – Social Impacts of Gambling in the United
    Social Impacts of Gambling in the United States A Comprehensive Analysis of State Regulatory Bodies, Legislatures, and Health Departments PRS Policy Brief 0910-05 March 16, 2010 Prepared by: Boyd Lever David Lumbert II Anya Perret For Presentation to the New Hampshire Gaming Study Commission This report was written by undergraduate students at Dartmouth College under the direction of professors in the Rockefeller Center. Support for the Policy Research Shop is provided by the Ford Foundation. Contact: Nelson A. Rockefeller Center, 6082 Rockefeller Hall, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755 http://rockefeller.dartmouth.edu/shop/ • Email: [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 3 1. METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 STATE REGULATORY BODY METHODOLOGY (SEE TABLE 4 IN APPENDIX FOR COMPLETE FINDINGS).. 4 1.2 STATE LEGISLATURE METHODOLOGY (SEE TABLE 5 IN APPENDIX FOR COMPLETE FINDINGS)............ 4 1.3 HEALTH DEPARTMENT/PROBLEM GAMBLING TREATMENT PROGRAMS METHODOLOGY (SEE............. 5 TABLE 6 IN APPENDIX FOR COMPLETE FINDINGS)...................................................................................... 5 2. FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................................ 5 2.1 POTENTIAL
    [Show full text]
  • Remote Gaming and the Gambling Industry
    . Remote Gaming and the Gambling Industry Suzanne M. Kirchhoff Analyst in Industrial Organization and Business November 16, 2011 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R41614 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress c11173008 . Remote Gaming and the Gambling Industry Summary Gambling, once widely outlawed, is today a regulated, taxed activity that is legal in some form— bingo, card games, slot machines, state-run lotteries, casinos—in all but two states. State governments have the main responsibility for overseeing gambling, but Congress historically has played a significant role in shaping the industry, most recently by passing the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA; P.L. 109-347) in 2006. UIGEA, while preventing payments to illegal gambling-related businesses, does not outlaw any form of remote gaming. To the contrary, the law allows states and Indian tribes to offer remote gaming within their territory so long as certain conditions are met. Already a majority of states allow remote betting on horse racing, and a number use the web for lottery promotions. Several states are debating legislation to legalize online poker or other games. Indian tribes are using cutting-edge computer gambling technology at tribal casinos. U.S. gaming companies have created subsidiaries to focus on remote gaming and seem likely to expand rapidly if the legal issues are clarified. While UIGEA did not outlaw remote gaming, it also did not clarify the scope of long-standing laws that the Department of Justice has used to prosecute illegal Internet gambling, such as the Wire Act, 18 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Gambling and Problem Gambling in Oregon
    GAMBLING AND PROBLEM GAMBLING IN OREGON Report to the Oregon Gambling Addiction Treatment Foundation Rachel A. Volberg, Ph.D. Gemini Research, Ltd. P.O Box 628 Northampton, MA 01061 Tel: 413-584-4667 Email: [email protected] August 26, 1997 Gambling and Problem Gambling in Oregon TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................ iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. iv INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 1 Defining Problem and Pathological Gambling .............................................................................. 3 METHODS ........................................................................................................................................ 5 Questionnaire ................................................................................................................................ 5 Sample Design .............................................................................................................................. 5 Data Analysis and Reporting ........................................................................................................ 7 GAMBLING
    [Show full text]
  • OR-Adolescent-Report Final 2008
    University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Alberta Gambling Research Institute Alberta Gambling Research Institute 2008-03 Oregon youth and their parents: Gambling and problem gambling prevalence and attitudes Volberg, Rachel A.; Hedberg, Eric C.; Moore, Thomas L. Oregon Department of Human Services http://hdl.handle.net/1880/49247 technical report Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca OREGON YOUTH AND THEIR PARENTS: GAMBLING AND PROBLEM GAMBLING PREVALENCE AND ATTITUDES Report to the Oregon Department of Human Services Rachel A. Volberg, Ph.D. Gemini Research, Ltd. Northampton, MA Eric C. Hedberg, M.A. Hedberg Consulting Chicago, IL Thomas L. Moore, Ph.D. Herbert & Louis Wilsonville, OR March 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................. i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. ii INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1 METHODS ...................................................................................................................... 11 GAMBLING AMONG ADOLESCENTS IN OREGON ..................................................... 16 ADOLESCENT PROBLEM GAMBLING IN OREGON.................................................... 28 COMPARING AT-RISK GAMBLERS IN OREGON ........................................................ 34 GAMBLING, ALCOHOL
    [Show full text]
  • Regulating Gaming in Ireland
    12 774406 4 77 4 56 00352 52 235 6 4 3 4 3 23284 1983 7 50 218395 7 4 4 74 45311 35 452 23 2 6 7 0 1119 7502 4 21 577 5 9 5 45 10035 45 423 22 6 7 3 2 52328 1198 4 75 420 9 3 7 93 49 03496 57 34 70 2 3 7 1 56738 950 6 80 58015 5 3 20 46 32343 02 23 11 8 4 2 9 38751 454978 0 67857 3 0 70 20 0709 10 Regulating Gaming in Ireland 73 95 4 8 4 58345 264647 3 39002 2 2 11 83 02342 98 75 45 7 0 9 34068 912035 6 08110 738 95 468 94580 64 34 4 0 9 0 6904 026 0 4 5 50103 053 54 34 100 25 3 13455 01 5 1 50134 040054 5 8 3789 4250432 46 0435 81 75804 59 8 3 89985 407007 86 8972 7076121 37 7043 37 5 82734 54 1 8 01364 034285 31 286 1424504 97 34967 79034 09120 56 0 1 67380 501468 01 583 2064980 7 60540 690467 60043 52 1 2 21540 425501 50 250 4550013 5 41501 455040 56807Regulating78 3 0 Gaming55469 043507 43 580 5978802 1 985424070070 4945 15 5 5 64647 234390 28 19 7502342 9 5193454 800 7857 340in8 Ireland1 56070 811056 50 680 5801564 34 2646473 343 35232 411 9 7 34200 387519 80 496 57 03406 09 35 709 11056 80095 146 0 5 56458 520649 50 054 469 46798 60 45 010 205321540034 550 0 5 13425 345500 11 150 345 0400 56 37 834 043255469760 350 6 5 19758 6597880 1488 854 407 0705 48 0 761 053768270437 837 2 3 73455 4134582 1364 034 850 3145 07 1 567 8009501468009 580 5 8 20264 7332343 2352 841 198 4750 20 7 193 5497800349678 790 4 7 20356 0908158 5978 213 488 9854 70 67489 2707076121053Report of the Casino Committee 682 0 9 42504358273455 1345 070 364 7034 0731 28675 4245047497800 496 8Report90 of the68709120356070 1105 380 950 4680 5801 58345 0649801973501 054Casino4
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6. Native American Tribal Gambling
    including tribal housing developments, CHAPTER 6. NATIVE community centers, tribal government facilities, AMERICAN TRIBAL GAMBLING agricultural enterprises, and one of the reservation’s two casinos. In addition to the Subcommittee’s work, the full Commission heard testimony from tribal representatives, Congress established the National Gambling officials of the National Indian Gaming Impact Study Commission in 1996 and directed Commission (NIGC), the Bureau of Indian it to study and report on the economic and social Affairs, and representatives of state and local impacts of all forms of legalized gambling in the governments at its hearings in Boston, United States, including Indian gambling.1 To Massachusetts; Del Mar, California; and Tempe, ensure that sufficient attention was devoted to Arizona. The full Commission also visited this important and complex subject, the Foxwoods, near Ledyard, Connecticut, the Commission established a Subcommittee on largest Indian gambling facility in the United Indian Gambling to supplement the full States, to observe an Indian casino firsthand. Commission’s work in this area. In the course of seven formal hearings (in Del Mar, California; the Gila River Indian Community near Tempe, Arizona; Albuquerque, New Mexico; New GROWTH OF TRIBAL GAMBLING Orleans, Louisiana; Las Vegas, Nevada; Seattle, Large-scale Indian casino gambling is barely a Washington; and Virginia Beach, Virginia), and decade old. Its origins trace back to 1987, when with the assistance of the National Indian the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Gaming Association (NIGA), the Subcommittee California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians. received testimony from approximately 100 This decision held that the state of California had tribal leaders, representing more than 50 tribes no authority to apply its regulatory statutes to from every section of the country.
    [Show full text]