Insight CAESARS EMEA Viv Ross
established casinos are limited to twenty regardless of size.
Tere is no obvious reason why machine-to- table restrictions should vary so greatly between casinos. With a ratio of 2:1, a small casino would require 40 gaming tables to reach its maximum allocation of 80 machines. Tis is not only unrealistic, it is illogical. It means that a small casino needs 40 tables to reach its maximum allocation, but a large casino only needs 30. Our biggest casino in the UK, Te Empire Casino, operates 38 tables
Te 1968 Act dictated that you could only operate two high-stakes gambling machines in the casino, but you were allowed to site three - the third just had to be switched off. If you switched it on, then you had to switch off one of the other two. It was very strange. Te allocation was eventually increased from two to three, doubling to six, 10 and finally 20 machines for the established casinos in the UK. (Although the 2005 Act increased the permitted number of high-stake gambling machines from ten to twenty, it changed the rules to include lower stake fruit machines as part of this allocation. Having previously been able to offer an unlimited number of these ‘Section 21’ machines, casinos were effectively obliged to remove them to receive their full quota of high- stake machines. As a result, there are now 1,200 fewer machines in British casinos than before the Act came into effect).
Should British casino operators be allowed to tailor their offer to consumer preference as their international competitors do - and would this type of proposal draw the same criticism now as it did when the Act was being drafted?
I don’t see the law as a drag on the numbers of casinos that are open, since we still have dormant casino licences in the UK. If we find the
perfect place then we open a casino if it makes sense in terms of the expense, the building and the casino offer. As far as I’m aware, there have been more casinos closed since the Act than have opened. Tere’s been 145 casinos or around that number as far back as I can remember. As a casino operator, we’d love to open more locations, but I don’t think it’s the Gambling Act that’s holding us back. Tis is a difficult industry to be in and over the last 10 years there isn’t pressure being applied to open more casinos in the UK.
Is the Act still fit for purpose?
I think in general terms it is, though certainly they could standardise casino licences for example, make them all the same, which would be really beneficial. I also think they need to address the machines issue too. Te classic example is FOBTs. I don’t think bookies are the best place for them - I think they should be in places where there’s a lot more oversight on that particular kind of machine.
Have we got the Corporate Social Responsibility equation right in the UK; the balance between the good casinos can do for their neighbourhood, the local community and the level of control over problem gambling that causes harm?
I think there are always things we can improve, however, I was heavily involved in self- exclusion scheme in the UK, which went live two years ago. I think it’s been a huge step forward for casino industry. In the past, if someone excluded themselves from Caesars they could simply go to a Genting or Grosvenor casino and play there. Te law actually prevented us from informing other operators of the exclusion. So the industry got together and sought to jointly share responsibility. Now, if you have a problem, and decide to exclude yourself
from one casino, you’re excluded from them all as part of the national scheme. It’s one of the things we’ve done to improve the casino industry for the players, but to which the wider world is completely oblivious.
What keeps you motivated?
When you work for the same company in the same industry for 40 years, people ask why am I still doing this? My view of the people working in the casino gaming industry is that if you last more than two to three years then it’s likely that you’ll become a lifer. It’s well paid, it’s interesting. Tere are few downsides. My own career trajectory took me all the places I wanted to go.
You’re now working in compliance. Isn’t that a boring desk job?
Depending on when I come into work, one minute I’m interviewing a dealer as to why their actions led to a substantial lost sum; I’m observing tables on CCTV or discussing particular aspects of the games; or I could be taking a call from a customer with an issue. I recently spent an afternoon marrying together marketing databases and dealing with licensing, making sure that licences are up to date and renewed, before dealing with a charity with which the company is involved. Compliance sounds like it’s a small thing, or just one thing, but there are six of us in the department and we’re involved in all aspects of the company and its business.
What’s next?
I’m 63 and retiring soon. I’m a director of the pension scheme and I’ll be taking mine in the near future. If I was to retire at 65 and someone said about consulting, I might think about it, but otherwise I’ll be heading off in a boat.
NEWSWIRE / INTERACTIVE /
247.COM P49
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94
