I have been a huge advocate of a casino at the Meadowlands. The NJ constitution reads casino gaming will be restricted to Atlantic City only and Christie has been a strong backer of making Atlantic City a family destination but failed to see the damage the bordering racinos and casinos would have on AC . Now as the curtain falls on yet another AC casino(Trump Plaza)Governor Christie signed a bill to increase the tax on the online gaming from 10 to 15%. This will also be the new tax rate for any "expanded"gaming in the state. Sports Wagering may be the only thing that can save NJ's casinos and racetracks without the need to bring gaming north of AC!

Where did the word "arrest" come into it. All they have to do is seize it, take all the servers and whatever else tickles their fancy and it's all over.

Also why don't you look up and read about the Rico act because the feds can certainly use it. Whether or not it applies really doesn't matter to them.The defense will have to hire attorneys that will cost them well over a million dollars for starters.

In regards to possession that exemption is for small amounts. What happens if the feds say ok you can wager up to $25 a game without the possibility of arrest. But we will monitor the facility to make sure no one tries to beat the system. What happens if they make you set up an account like an ADW? Just imagine what a wife might say when she sees the amounts being lost. After one friend hears of this he'll say "hell with it back to the bookie I go".

As you have stated before a casino at the Meadowlands would be a win for everybody. Businesses nearby would see a huge surge in customers and the trickle down effect would be huge. The amount of people within an hours drive would be a close second to Aqueduct. All it would take is a backdoor deal between a republican governor and the senate president. I can't imagine this happening but stranger things have.

But sports wagering will never fill the states coiffures just like poker hasn't gotten off the ground. It's way too easy to lose money fast without ther entertainment value. One could take a wife or girlfriend out for the night playing slots or whatever and have a great time. Imagine the same situation sitting at a bar (buying drinks) and after three hours the long drive home because you lost. Easiest way to get a divorce or lose the girl of your dreams.

The selling point on sports wagering in NJ is the ability it has to bring people to the racetracks and the casinos. The online wagering form won't take place for quite sometime. NJ has a Governor who stood by the Atlantic City casinos as if he personally owned them. The AC rehab project is over it didn't work. Despite what many of the internet attorneys are saying no one knows what the feds will do to keep NJ from operating sports wagering. If anyone thinks the feds act quickly they don't. The supreme court will eventually decide the fate of sports wagering which won't be for many years, until then the green light is on and all of the sports wagering connections continue to act as if it will happen!

Every year the U.S. Supreme Court receives thousands of requests to have the high court hear specific cases. Experts estimate that roughly 5000 requests are made annually, so I make the odds 5000-1 that the Supreme Court will ever accept a case involving sports wagering.

I think mgoldie's analysis is an astute one. It's just that things DO change, even in politics, and one thing that's very different from 20 years ago is the pressure states are under to balance their budgets. It's a wild card, in my view.

Lesniak appears happy to make a public fight over it. The bottom fact is that the leagues don't have a leg to stand on, remember. Here are the reasons they don't want SB in NJ:

1. They are diametrically opposed to anything that will increase the likelihood for the licensing or registration of sports owners with authorities. They want complete control of their leagues and want them completely privately managed and governed, despite the fact that the leagues literally could not exist without federal antitrust protections. Legalizing gambling more broadly will almost certainly bring with it, in time, calls for better regulation of games, whether successful or not.

Owners do not want more light shed on their business practices. This is their fundamental concern.

2. What the leagues ultimately fear is some sort of player-based or regionally-based ownership scheme that kicks them to the curb. In the long run, I think this is inevitable (I said "long run"). The NFL has long since outlawed the Green Bay ownership model and fears public consciousness around the idea that owners are basically parasitic rich white dudes who are profiting from the emotional attachment of city to team. Donald Sterling light, if you will (and some aren't any "lighter").

Imagine how the 50 or so largest cities in the US would fare if they had an extra 250-500M/yr on average for their budgets? Believe me the mayors and governors of these cities and states have wondered.

There Is No Chance
 

that anyone will legally place a wager on a sporting event in NJ anytime soon.

the problems are too costly to remedy, the profits too small.

i would love it to be true, I fly to Nevada every year or so for a sports betting vacation, but it just is not going to happen.

Ok, I would guess the sports leagues feel the same way you do and some of the other posters on this thread, that it won't happen. Fact is it will because if the professional sports leagues pushed hard enough based on the belief they are a huge lobbying group with some sort of magical powers, the Supreme Court would have heard this case and voted against it. Why didn't they? It's unconstitutional for one state to be allowed to have sports wagering and another not to. Read all the fine print because there is plenty of it and NJ will have sports wagering soon.

if it is a question of fairness...
 

and if all laws were perfect...and if the world was just, you might have something.

but the fact is, to address your issue of fairness, banning sports wagering everywhere would be more likely than allowing it everywhere.

the status quo will remain because nobody cares that much one way or the other, and there is little money to be made.

One under-explored aspect of all of this (for me) is the iGaming component. Would sports betting be legal online in New Jersey under Lesniak's bill (in the way poker is, within the geographical confines of NJ)? I assume so. If so, then that would seem to mean people like Sheldon Adelson will be enemies of this - not a good sign for those of us who want Christie to sign on.

Adelson, besides being a sh*t-eating reptile, is a casino magnate dedicated to illegalizing online wagering in all forms because he - a casino magnate, mind you - has a "moral objection" to it. Right. He's pouring millions into a lobbying effort to defeat all forms of online gambling.

Adelson is one of the biggest GOP donors. Christie has already genuflected before him after this . If Christie still feels he needs Adelson's approval/money, and Adelson is as dead-set against online gaming as he appears, it's really hard to see Christie going the extra mile for NJ sports betting if that would include online SB.

I hope your dreams come true though I doubt it. It would be a huge asset to the state of NJ if this comes to fruition. I am not against it at all but try to look at the merits before offering an opinion. A judge is supposed to be unbiased and that's what I try to emulate.

This country shut down two major poker companies and seized their assets. The people who ran them had warrants out for their arrest and most struck plea deals. There are lots of people in Costa Rica who can't come home for the same reason.

http://news.co.cr/online-gambling-in...ressure/28388/

One thing is for sure and that is neither YOU or I know the eventual outcome. We can both offer opinions and evidence but in the end it will be nine judges who decide. In the meantime I would assume the U.S. gets an injunction immediately if NJ sets up shop. Decisions and money will be influenced by the upcoming presidential (its not too early) elections possiby impairing the correct outcome. If the anti gambling forces have more money and manpower its dead in the water. How much these foreign operations want to spend on lobbyists and contributions is anyones guess.

One thing I know for sure is if it gets off the ground Drazin will not take the first wager. I don't trust this guy just think he's out for his own financial gain since the state decided to get out of horse racing. Do I have proof? Nope I will be the first one to admit that but my gut is telling me otherwise.

One thing I know for sure is if it gets off the ground Drazin will not take the first wager. I don't trust this guy just think he's out for his own financial gain since the state decided to get out of horse racing. Do I have proof? Nope I will be the first one to admit that but my gut is telling me otherwise.

His track will be the first place the wager is made at Hill has the sw center all set up and ready to go at MP.

I meant him personally putting his butt on the line. I would never doubt he's first out of the gate but you won't see his name mentioned if warrants come down. Some poor teller (what would be the correct name?)will likely come close to getting a heart attack while he sits in his office figuring out how can he expand his personal wealth.

In case of the small chance a teller gets arrested will Monmouth put up the bail? Again my hunch is Drazin will be hiding under his desk.

Again I hope NJ gets it off the ground just don't see it in my (whatever that's worth) crystal ball.

I don't know if you read a post I made a couple of years ago but it's summer so we can do reruns. My friend called me up and asked if I wanted to catch the last couple of races at Monmouth. We get there a little before race ten out of twelve. Would you believe they were still charging for parking and when I said to the attendant "are you serious" her reply was "at least you will get a close spot". Then they had the "gall" to charge admission (I had passes not the point) instead of letting people in for free they would wager that money anyway. So what are they going to do with sports wagering? The same procedure where if somebody bets a ten timer the actually cost will be near a twelve timer. That's an awfully large vig for a small time gambler. What do you think this person will do the next time? This was under the Drazin watch do you think this is the smart way to try and entice people back to the track?

10 timer :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

what did you pay for a losing 15 timer with the old school book cus I know it wasn't 82.50 :lol: :lol: more like 85-75 :lol: :lol: :eek: :rolleyes: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:

Nobody will be arrested lol. Christie will veto it , if that's case. He was a federal prosecutor therefore he would not put anyone at risk for arrest. The states attorneys I am sure are in touch with the justice department to make sure the repealed law is in compliance to the third circuit opinion.

Allan