CHICAGO | City Casino
 

Looks like the city is opting to throw billions in tax revenue away by locating the casino far from where anyone will want to go. Genius.


https://www.chicagobusiness.com/greg...dy-city-casino

I expected better, Lori.

^ Seriously, so poorly thought out.

I'm already calling it WAY short on revenue projections.

"Let's bring the sin to the most vulnerable areas. Also people will love exiting with huge cash winnings into the clean and safe streets of North Lawndale!"


But seriously, would love for it to be North Lawndale, more money for me...

CHICAGO | City Casino
 

https://chicago.curbed.com/2019/7/17...ayor-lightfoot

Did anyone see the list of 5 sites for the Chicago casino? They are all in southside or westside neighborhoods other than Michael Reese site. I thought the idea was to put it where tourists go, to get money from tourists? These looks like far flung and impoverished locations. I don't think it's a good thing to plop a giant casino into an impoverished neighborhood, that's not going to help anything. It should be next to McCormick to get the money from conventioneers and tourists downtown. I don't think tourists are going to trek to Lawndale or 111th. I sure wouldn't want to go all the way south to 111th, although I might go if it was downtown.

Here are the five sites:

Harborside at 111th and the Bishop Ford Freeway in Pullman
the former Michael Reese hospital at 31st and Cottage Grove in Bronzeville
Pershing Road and State Street in Bronzeville
Roosevelt Road and Kostner Avenue in Lawndale
the former U.S. Steel parcel at 80th and Lake Shore Drive in South Chicago

And then they'll be wondering why it's a boondoggle in 20 years. I'd imagine a lot of pressure on the Mayor's office to propose locations outside the city center because people complain about not enough economic opportunities. Ironically, it'll do far more damage than good to those areas if they get the casino... stupid

I agree that it should be McCormick, and the choice really shouldn't even be close.

Here's my casino suggestion. It benefits from there being few NIMBYs in the vicinity and is close-ish proximity to downtown and all rail terminals. I call it The 79.

https://i.imgur.com/DBhUjOl.png

In the plan but not shown above: New stadium for Chicago Fire.

When do the eminent domain proceedings start?

^Great spot for a casino- walking distance of Union Station. Same with the Chicago Fire stadium. #noBrainer

wow to the casino sites.. Roosevelt and kostner??

I like the State/Pershing site, actually. It's close to a Green Line stop at Indiana and several bus lines, so workers will have easy transit access from the South or West Sides. It's close enough to Guaranteed Rate to maybe use their parking facilities, and it could potentially tie into the abandoned Kenwood rail line as an elevated trail like the 606.

Of course, i'd prefer a site that was actually ON the Guaranteed Rate parking lots. I don't know why that was ruled out... lots of potential synergies between the White Sox and a casino operator to create an entertainment district that the Sox currently lack.

These sites are awful. If they're gonna trek all the way down there, they may as just keep going to Hammond, where the tax structure is significantly lower (lower taxes on the casino = less vig for the customer). The only way a high-tax Chicago casino can compete is with a much better location, i.e. downtown or near downtown. Of those five, the most plausible is the Michael Reese location, and the residents (and alderman) have made it explicitly clear they don't want a casino there.

What a fuck up seriously. Is she that daft?

I still think the lakeside center is the best compromise.



https://chicago.suntimes.com/columni...-pier-ed-zotti


The best — and worst — places to put a Chicago casino

To help ensure that it helps, rather than hurts, the city, put it right downtown, not in an isolated spot.

By Ed Zotti Jul 12, 2019, 11:00am CDT



It’s not advice people want to hear. But understanding the thinking behind it might help Chicago avoid the fate of Atlantic City, New Jersey, and other failed gambling meccas.




The best place in Chicago to put a casino?

Michigan Avenue and Lake Street, which is a short distance from Millennium Park, the Riverwalk and the Randolph Street theater district.

The worst place? The former Michael Reese Hospital site on the Near South Side — or any other isolated, blank-slate location.

I base this on conversations with gaming and hospitality industry experts Andrew Klebanow and Steven Gallaway, an illuminating white paper they co-authored on “Casinos and the City” and observations of casino districts in other cities.

It’s not advice people want to hear. But understanding the thinking behind it might help Chicago avoid the fate of Atlantic City, New Jersey, and other failed gambling meccas.



With a few shortsighted decisions, driven by a need to maximize tax revenue, who’s to say the Loop couldn’t go south again?

Lesser sites

Fear of messing up the Loop, coupled with a distrust of gambling and the ill-founded belief that casinos spur economic development, might prompt city leaders to stick the casino in some out-of-the-way location in the South Loop or on the Near South Side.

In addition to the Michael Reese site, rebranded as the Burnham Lakefront, plausible candidates include the proposed One Central development near Soldier Field, the Lakeside Center at McCormick Place and The 78 project planned for the massive site at Roosevelt Road and Clark Street.

The developers of the Burnham Lakefront and The 78 voiced no enthusiasm for a casino when I broached the subject. Bob Dunn, who is lining up billions of dollars in public financing for One Central, has built sports venues elsewhere. For him, a casino seems like no great leap.

But I think any of these locations would be a mistake. A casino on the South Side almost certainly would be an island-type facility. The Michael Reese site, among other drawbacks, is separated from downtown by the Stevenson Expressway. The benefit to the surrounding area would be zero.

An island casino might retard redevelopment, suggesting the neighborhood is a dumping ground for uses nobody else wants.

A downtown location would require skillful planning and execution but have greater potential upside. It would check most of the boxes Klebanow and Gallaway cite as “critical success factors for the modern urban casino” — among them a pedestrian-friendly environment, proximity to an existing entertainment/dining district and good transit and highway access.

Why not Navy Pier?

A drawback of the Loop is the lack of a suitable site. Klebanow and Gallaway note that modern casinos require a large floor plate, which would be hard to come by.

So Klebanow is partial to Navy Pier, which is easy to imagine as a casino. It’s already a leading tourist attraction. And it offers lots to do besides gamble. For sheer entertainment value, it’d compare favorably with any Las Vegas venue.

Navy Pier also has disadvantages. Lake Shore Drive separates it from the rest of the city. There’s not much of a street scene in neighboring parts of Streeterville.

Navy Pier also lacks high-capacity transit access, which means traffic congestion — already a problem — would only get worse. A casino operator probably would want more parking

…


Big Jim might be a smart bet

So maybe the Loop is worth another look. I know of a dilapidated but architecturally significant Loop building that might make a good casino — perhaps a spectacular one. The structure, whose owner is looking to unload it, is in a busy pedestrian area near theaters, shops and transit. And it fills an entire block.

You’ve probably heard of it. It’s called the James R. Thompson Center.

Two conclusions:

•The best way to ensure that a casino helps, rather than hurts, its host city is to put it in the middle of a hot entertainment district — entertainment meaning amusements other than gambling.

•Casinos aren’t a neighborhood revitalization tool. If you put a casino in some down-and-out location hoping to spark a revival, you’re kidding yourself. Casinos don’t bring vitality to an urban area. If carelessly designed, they can suck vitality out.

The Crains article said that others will be considered, but that Lightfoot campaigned on keeping it out of downtown. I expect that the revenue projections will show that Michael Reese is by far the most profitable due to McCormick attendance and parking availability. Would probably draw from the Museum Campus too. Though State and Pershing is interesting. White Sox games could lead right into a casino evening. And with the Bronzeville and Chinatown already sort-of booming, and IIT close by, I could see the casino anchoring enough economic activity to move the needle on a near South Side resurgence.

As long as a Casino can be walked into from the sidewalk, isn't surround by surface parking and doesn't require entering in through a parking garage or a Bellagio-style 300 yard setback, I'll be happy. And I'd like there to be a sorts book.

I still think the lakeside center is the best compromise.







https://chicago.suntimes.com/columni...-pier-ed-zotti


The best — and worst — places to put a Chicago casino

To help ensure that it helps, rather than hurts, the city, put it right downtown, not in an isolated spot.

By Ed Zotti Jul 12, 2019, 11:00am CDT



It’s not advice people want to hear. But understanding the thinking behind it might help Chicago avoid the fate of Atlantic City, New Jersey, and other failed gambling meccas.




The best place in Chicago to put a casino?

Michigan Avenue and Lake Street, which is a short distance from Millennium Park, the Riverwalk and the Randolph Street theater district.

The worst place? The former Michael Reese Hospital site on the Near South Side — or any other isolated, blank-slate location.

I base this on conversations with gaming and hospitality industry experts Andrew Klebanow and Steven Gallaway, an illuminating white paper they co-authored on “Casinos and the City” and observations of casino districts in other cities.

It’s not advice people want to hear. But understanding the thinking behind it might help Chicago avoid the fate of Atlantic City, New Jersey, and other failed gambling meccas.



With a few shortsighted decisions, driven by a need to maximize tax revenue, who’s to say the Loop couldn’t go south again?

Lesser sites

Fear of messing up the Loop, coupled with a distrust of gambling and the ill-founded belief that casinos spur economic development, might prompt city leaders to stick the casino in some out-of-the-way location in the South Loop or on the Near South Side.

In addition to the Michael Reese site, rebranded as the Burnham Lakefront, plausible candidates include the proposed One Central development near Soldier Field, the Lakeside Center at McCormick Place and The 78 project planned for the massive site at Roosevelt Road and Clark Street.

The developers of the Burnham Lakefront and The 78 voiced no enthusiasm for a casino when I broached the subject. Bob Dunn, who is lining up billions of dollars in public financing for One Central, has built sports venues elsewhere. For him, a casino seems like no great leap.

But I think any of these locations would be a mistake. A casino on the South Side almost certainly would be an island-type facility. The Michael Reese site, among other drawbacks, is separated from downtown by the Stevenson Expressway. The benefit to the surrounding area would be zero.

An island casino might retard redevelopment, suggesting the neighborhood is a dumping ground for uses nobody else wants.

A downtown location would require skillful planning and execution but have greater potential upside. It would check most of the boxes Klebanow and Gallaway cite as “critical success factors for the modern urban casino” — among them a pedestrian-friendly environment, proximity to an existing entertainment/dining district and good transit and highway access.

Why not Navy Pier?

A drawback of the Loop is the lack of a suitable site. Klebanow and Gallaway note that modern casinos require a large floor plate, which would be hard to come by.

So Klebanow is partial to Navy Pier, which is easy to imagine as a casino. It’s already a leading tourist attraction. And it offers lots to do besides gamble. For sheer entertainment value, it’d compare favorably with any Las Vegas venue.

Navy Pier also has disadvantages. Lake Shore Drive separates it from the rest of the city. There’s not much of a street scene in neighboring parts of Streeterville.

Navy Pier also lacks high-capacity transit access, which means traffic congestion — already a problem — would only get worse. A casino operator probably would want more parking

…


Big Jim might be a smart bet

So maybe the Loop is worth another look. I know of a dilapidated but architecturally significant Loop building that might make a good casino — perhaps a spectacular one. The structure, whose owner is looking to unload it, is in a busy pedestrian area near theaters, shops and transit. And it fills an entire block.

You’ve probably heard of it. It’s called the James R. Thompson Center.

Two conclusions:

•The best way to ensure that a casino helps, rather than hurts, its host city is to put it in the middle of a hot entertainment district — entertainment meaning amusements other than gambling.

•Casinos aren’t a neighborhood revitalization tool. If you put a casino in some down-and-out location hoping to spark a revival, you’re kidding yourself. Casinos don’t bring vitality to an urban area. If carelessly designed, they can suck vitality out.










see also


why-lightfoot-should-go-all-downtown-casino

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/opin...owntown-casino

it looks like lightfoot is poised to drop the ball on this. :uhh:

you put a casino where we can suck the money out of the wallets of lonely business travelers/convention goers, which chicago receives by the millions every year.

putting this out in lawndale, pullman, or US steel site means we miss out on all of that. micheal reese or state/pershing might get us some of that action, but will still leave billions of dollars of out-of-town tourist money on the table.

dumb.

Ald. King (4th) has said she doesn't want it at the Michael Reese site, and Ald. Dowell (3rd) has said she doesn't want it at State & Pershing.

You don't put a casino where you need the jobs; you put it where there are suckers who can easily be fleeced. That means downtown.

Much as I want Thompson Center saved, I think it's too large and is really bad optics (nearly bankrupt state desperately converts office building to casino). The about-to-be-vacant Medinah Temple would be an interesting possibility.

I really like how New Orleans has a casino downtown. It's easily walkable by tourists, and I wasn't planning on going there to gamble but when I saw it nearby I thought why not.

That's why it needs to be downtown or in the south loop at least. It's a huge mistake to locate it where the jobs are needed, the workers can easily take the red line to the casino from the southside.

It would be perfect for the Motor Row entertainment district! Or next to the Sox stadium as was mentioned.

Chicago needs a glamorous casino that can synergize with existing entertainment and dining downtown.

I see no reason why the Michael Reese site wouldn't be a great one, especially with its proximity to McComick. Even State/Pershing could work out, but it really depends on the specific site plan. But I do agree, the other sites are horrifically, terribly bad.

Aaron (Glowrock)

Everybody is jumping the gun here.

These aren't the only finalists. The city casino is going to be privately owned, and the private operator, after consultation with the analysts and reviewing their study, will have a major say in the site decision. The study that will be released on Aug. 12 has to see whether the casino under the current terms is even economically viable at all, much less where it will go.

This is political theater to show the South and West sides that the city made every possible effort to move jobs closer to them. Also to see whether these neighborhoods even want a casino at all if they were to be chosen, or if they'll try to fight it.

It may very well be that Illinois residents going to Indiana are a more reliable source of revenue than conventioners. Or that rent and parking make a Downtown casino uncompetitive among other issues.

This. I think Lori obviously sees the casino as a driver of economic resurgence... not a detractor. And with that in mind, the thought becomes one of which areas can benefit most by the casino. At least that appears to be her thought on it judging by the preliminary site selections. And really, when you get down to it, as much as I would like to see havens of vice as far away from vulnerable areas as possible, the flip side of it is that it could spur employment within those areas and help boost local businesses/restaurants in those areas. It’s a bit if a Hail Mary no doubt, but it could be exactly what’s needed to inject new life in those long neglected areas.

It’s a gamble... but not a gamble without a purpose. Time will tell whether it will pay off or not. No pun intended.

That said, I still think it’s early. We could very well see an entirely new site emerge as the favorite.

Of the listed sites only Michael Reese is even close to being a decent location for the casino. No tourist is going to almost any of those neighborhoods. And the idea that jobs have to be in a neighborhood to help lower income people (or any potential employee) is simply not true. There aren't good jobs in my neighborhood and most everyone is doing fine.

Lightfoot has been a pretty big disappointment to me so far.

Agree, it would be cool to have it right downtown like they do in Europe and South America. They should put it in the long vacant retail space at the base of Trump Tower. Now that would be fun!

I'm with you on a downtown site however I really doubt that is of much interest to Friedman for the Medinah.

I haven't really been following this casino business, but I'm curious if someone could steer me to the data that shows convention goers spending a bunch of time and money burning through money at slot machines and craps tables.

The biggest competitors for conventions are Orlando and Las Vegas. Orlando has warm weather and Disney. Vegas has warm weather and casinos. We aren't getting warm all-year-round weather or Disney any time soon, so casino it is.

While a downtown Chicago Casino is high on everyone's lists. And I like the idea of a Lakeside Casino as an adaptive reuse for a great piece of architecture. We all assume it is the convention goers that will populate the downtown site.
Keep in mind that convention goers are on expense accounts. It is easy to expense fine dining and drinks as entertainment. Casino receipts will be under much more scrutiny and no company is going to reimburse casino loses.

It might be prudent to look at where Indiana Casinos get their clientele. After all it is the competition.

All Indiana casinos run shuttle buses to Illinois.

Ceasars Hammond Horseshoe runs 20 daily shuttle buses to Chinatown alone
Another 3 trips are from the northside starting at Belmont/Clark running south with several stops finally picking up at Hyatt McCormick. So that is only 3 shuttles on a 8 stop route that include McMK.
4 shuttles are dedicated to Argyle/Broadway.
5 shuttles dedicated to Diversey
5 shuttles depart McCormick/Devon in west RP
6 shuttles depart Harlem/Foster
5 shuttles from Bridgeview-Harlem
4 shuttles from Harlme/25th in North Riverside.
Hammond Horshoe runs about 52 shuttles daily to Chicagoland, 20 of those to Chinatown. they run ZERO shuttles to any Indiana location.

Ameristar East Chicago
Runs HOURLY from 2734 Archer & Wentworth Chinatown 8 am- 12 am (16 total).
And then 6 daily trips from 13th and Wabash total 22 trips from Chicago. They have no other scheduled shuttles.

Majestic Star in Gary runs 17 daily shuttles from Chinatown(2734 S. Wentworth) last pickup at 3:30am. They do not run any other shuttle.

That is 91 daily shuttles from Chicagoland to Indiana casinos. That is future Chicago Casino base customer. That is who Chicago needs to target, because the are here and they are gambling already. Just capturing 70% of the outflow would be a win and then add the convention goers spending.

So if about half of the shuttle buses are coming for Chinatown, wouldn't the south loop, McCormick Place or Michael Reese area be the perfect location for a casino blocks from Chinatown? Plus scooping up the conventioneers?

File under "things NOT to do at the Chicago casino".

Harrah's New Orleans replaced the architecturally significant Rivergate convention center with a piece of horrid zonked-out Postmodernism. Most of the walls are blank, so it creates giant voids at the foot of Canal St AND Poydras St where there should be street life. The parking garages replaced even older, more historic buildings and even though they tried to create an urban streetscape around the garages it's more of a sick joke. It would be like if they tore down the Thompson Center, put in a huge blank-walled box with a bunch of drive-thrus and porte cocheres, and then demolished the adjacent block for good measure.

I will agree that Harrah's does capture pedestrian traffic between CBD/Warehouse District hotels and the French Quarter, and the promise of free, clean restrooms lures many people in to gamble.

Unfortunately there's not much hope for a casino with good urban bones. The Chicago casino will need an experienced operator, and all of those are dead-set on a suburban or at least Vegas-like model. Look at Wynn's Encore in Boston.

Hmm, I thought the New Orleans casino is pretty attractive brick and traditional architecture personally. I'm not sure what was there before it. It looks pretty traditional and hasome from the front corner where you enter. The concrete chain hotels around it are alot uglier if you want to nitpick that area. The chain hotels around there don't provide much street life either.

Anyway I didn't say it has to recreate that casino, I said I liked that it was downtown and a walkable location.

No disrespect intended by I highly doubt your neighborhood is anything like the neighborhoods being proposed for the casino. And yes, I am a witness to "location" having a great deal to do with getting a job.

My parents did very well for themselves (both college educated/one a Doctor) but I nonetheless grew up on the southside of Chicago... and loved it I might add. But I personally witnessed many who wanted to go for job interviews that did not have "car fare" as they called it, to ride the bus or train to get to those job interviews. It happens more than you could ever imagine.

As for LL and her job performance, give it time my friend... give it time. The machine that is Chicago will not be broken in a day, a week, or months... it will take years. As for her other agenda items, lets not jump to conclusions on those either. Give it time and LETS SEE HOW HER VISION UNFOLDS. If it works, lets vote for her again. If not, we vote her out. Pretty simple really. But she is so new to the position right now that we have barely even taken the wrapping off of her. Its unfair to pass blanket judgments upon her at this point within the process - its much too early.
.

Putting the casino on the South or West Side won't solve that problem.. if you can't afford CTA fare and live in North Lawndale, how does a casino in Pullman or Bronzeville help you? Or vice versa?

For those that can scrape together $2.75, a downtown location offers the easiest accessibility for everyone, rich OR poor.

I don't think those areas in Chicago need a casino. I hope Chicago doesn't get a casino period. I think those areas need grocery stores and other small retail. I think Lori should try to get Aldi to open a few stores on the south and west sides, probably near the metro or major bus stops.

I too have deep reservations about a Chicago casino. But if there is to be one, I believe the best place to have one would be in the 78 development area. One it would be close to Chinatown, the Dan Ryan, easy access to the river tourism boats, which gives you easy access to Navy Pier.

Chicago’s first casino still might end up downtown, says Lightfoot
2 comments

The five neighborhood sites shortlisted by the mayor do not represent the city’s definitive list

https://chicago.curbed.com/2019/7/19...ds-bronzeville

---

Personally, I think a good location might be the Mercy Hospital parking lots.

Maybe they could put the Block 37 mall out of its misery and convert it to a casino.


“I’m not saying that a downtown site is off the board,” said Lightfoot after a Thursday press conference about the current heatwave. “There are some concerns, I think, with a downtown site, and we wanted to avoid that in this first instance,” the mayor explained.

When pressed about specific issues, the mayor said that her office heard concerns that a downtown location could ultimately detract from tourism. Some tour operators and convention organizers fear that attendees would go to the casino instead of participating in the convention itself, Lightfoot added."

lol, what?

or the underground superstation at least!

If the Thompson Center was a chosen site, it seems like it would fit pretty well with minimal work. The office portion of the building can all be converted to open floors containing casino stuff, and they could keep the two levels of retail and the food court below. The elevator banks could be the way to enter the casino section and they are so huge that only a handful of them are currently used.

The revenue could easily support the maintenance needs of the building for the very first time in its life.

Not that I would actually want the casino there, mind you. I would put it far from downtown and use transit/shuttles to get people there. Also, when considering the competition, keep in mind that Indiana allows smoking and Illinois does not. A casino near the Indiana border would keep the Illinoisians that don't like the smoke in the state and would also draw Hoosiers that hate smoke. I would embrace the breathable air aspect of the casino and make it prominent.

1: Why do you want Thompson Center saved?

2: Who gives a fuck about optics? If anything the alternative (keeping the Thompson Center open and losing out on tax revenue while supporting an albatross of a decrepit building) looks way worse - "nearly bankrupt state keeps outdated vanity project in prime development site."

Saving Thompson Center is at this point a pipe dream, even the "balanced" state budgets have included the presumed sale of the site for the last several years. It should have never been built in the first place and is a testament to Springfield's lavish arrogance and irresponsibility with the state's finances.

The same reasons that make Trump Tower a poor location for retail apply to a casino. Not enough foot traffic, not close enough to transit, and the area would not do well with the additional vehicular traffic. It's also way, way too small for a major casino. The typical Vegas strip casino is north of 125k SF of gaming, some have almost 200k SF.

Haha, be careful. A lot of people love that eyesore. The atrium is wonderful, but at the end of the day, it is simply far too inefficient and historically irrelevant for the city to let take up a city block and not earn valuable tax dollars, both on its purchase/demolition and whatever is put there in its place. It may be the Loop's last chance at another true supertall.

I doubt we'll be shaking our heads at it being removed like we do some other lost treasures, such as the old Chicago Federal Building

Exactly. Those retail spaces are really skinny, so I doubt they'd be able to function for gambling purposes other than penny machines lol

your saying there is not enough foot traffic in that area of the loop?...I mean its not state street but its not that far off the beaten path.. Ideally if block 37 wasn't the block 37 we have now and still a blank slate they could of came up with something spectacular that could of housed a Casino, theater, and hotel and it would of just added to a more appropriate avenue like State... always missed opportunities ..smh

Not to mention all of the windows...

If there was enough foot traffic in that part of the loop then the retail space wouldn't still be vacant after over a decade on the market.

The Thompson Center site is just as good as Block 37 would have been, it has perfect transit access and could accommodate a massive mixed-use supertall with other attractions (shopping, nice restaurants, possibly an observation deck, hotel/convention space, etc.). Chinatown is the only non-loop location that could work. Remember the casino needs foot traffic and volume to drive revenue, if the taxes are too high then the payouts will be less, which will keep the degenerate gamblers in Indiana and the suburbs.

^ Well I think in regards to the casino its more of a "if you build it they will come" .. the foot traffic will be there if the attraction is there.. This is right in the heart of downtown where all the tourist who come to visit this city pass by at some point so where not talking about tourists having to go way out of there way to get there... I think block 37 site would of been better because its more inline to the state street theme of entertainment and shopping corridor where is the thompson center area is more straight up office/city/government space. But it can work at Thompson center as well if done right.

(just confirming were talking about the thompson center area vs block 37 area?...i reread your comment and i thought you were saying not enough foot traffic at Thompson center but your saying trump tower retail area which i didnt even think was a possible location for casino...but yes your correct that trumps space is way to small and just odd location for casino anyway)

The city just posted a public survey for casino location... submit your comments!

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JQB9JXT

Thanks, done!

In Las Vegas, only 1 in 4 now come to Las Vegas to gamble as the gambling Baby Boom generation is dying away, and the Millennials have no interest in it, generally speaking. Will be interesting to see if this casino even makes a profit, considering.

this thing is going to be a disaster, isn't it?

Yeah, I believe it. I've been to Vegas ~15 times and i've never spent a penny on gambling there (or in my life for that matter)...anyone who gambles, who can't afford to take the loss, is an idiot.

Done.

Aaron (Glowrock)