Revel $100,000 loss rebate

[doris13]

nobody reads the fine print.they're going to revel thinking they are going to get 1 big check;they don't realize they have to show up 20 straight weeks.

[JIMDUECE`SWILD]

http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/whatsnews.cfm#

Here's a link to a post on the Las Vegas Advisor page. Revel showed a 23.4M profit in July while the others showed a loss.
 Here's the AC Press article..http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news ... 963f4.html

[Vman96]

I withhold judgment on Revel's numbers until October at least.

[EDC1977]

 Here's the AC Press article..http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news ... 963f4.html

Thanks for the link Jim. The LVA post was much less elaborate.

[DaBurglar]

FINALLY.....a small step in the right direction for both Revel and AC........as you have stated though, it remains to be seen if this sticks and becomes sustained progress, or if it peters out in October after the summer crowds dissipate and winter sets in.......  The fact is, AC (all OF AC) Casinos need to replicate Revel's strategy in some way shape or form.    Real value gambling promotions need to be implemented, and Games Need to be loosened up (at least temporarily, and they need to TELL people they have done so.....)   With the slow season approaching again, AC truly needs to do this to avoid yet another overall DROP in revenue when compared YTD to last year revenue is analyzed. If nothing else, the Revel promotion, which was by no means a flawless smooth success story either from an implemetation standpoint or execution, shows that the market WILL respond to real VALUE promotions.

[JIMDUECE`SWILD]

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news ... f887a.html

[DaBurglar]

What could be the basis for this lawsuit?   From the very beginning when the promo was first announced by Revel a MONTH before the July 1 implementation date, everyone was aware that the "losses" were to be paid back over 20 weeks starting August 5th....?  Even if it was "fine print"  it still was described and indicated so the liability is null and void in terms of them informing customers.    PLUS, if it could even be shown that anyone who claims ignorance of the fine print had in fact logged on or read any of the multitude of forums discussing Revel's policy, forums such as THIS one, then the person's claim of ignorance and being duped losses even more credence and providence.   In other words, Revel's policy was "widely known" outside of the fine print, so I dont see where that becomes the basis of a lawsuit.    I cannot believe I am actually semi-defending Revel, but I prefer criticism be valid.  So what else could this lawsuit be based (successfully) on here???   What DID Revel do that was in fact wrong or negligent?  I will operate under the assumption that they did in fact do SOMETHING wrong since, up to this point, they have screwed everything else up.....