A UK Commons motion has expressed surprise and regret over the choice of Manchester by the Casino Advisory Panel as the location for Britain’s first super casino. An actual Parliamentary vote on the decision is not expected until March but 18 MPs have signed the motion stating that Blackpool has an overwhelming case for regeneration and the MPs want Parliament to re-examine it.

Manchester was considered by most to be an outsider for the regional casino although there was considerable value in the detailed reasoning given as behind the Panel’s choice. Ever since the decision was announced Blackpool has been gathering itself for renewed battle and has no intention of bowing out gracefully. Everyone concerned with the efforts to win the regional licence is determined to portray the end of Blackpool as a resort should they not finally succeed.

From the other side of the argument comes Manchester, which is being constantly told that it has already had much regenerative finance pumped into the city, including Sportcity that was built for the 2002 Commonwealth Games. As David Ottewell explains in an article in the Manchester Evening News, Manchester remains the third most deprived local authority in the country, Blackpool is 26th. He comments that new construction and sports facilities cannot build away deprivation, jobs are needed.

Before the final vote on the super casino location is taken by Parliament, there will doubtless be much lobbying behind the scenes in favour of Blackpool. Should the Casino Advisory Panel decision be overturned it would make rather a mockery of the money and time spent on assessing the proposals submitted by the local authorities. Blackpool is probably not the location that could provide the best study of social impact but it is a resort and therefore less of a red rag to the anti-gambling lobbies.

Even when the final decision is made there will be plenty of arguments looming over the choice of operator. With two of the major British operators now in the hands of foreign companies, protesting over international competition for the 17 new licences would appear redundant. There could be a case for unfair competition and the super casino monopoly, but then those are different stories. (E-02.06.07)

© Copyright 2007 CasinoCompendium



>>> return to archives
>>> return to frontpage