Any time it takes this long for women to start complaining I'm suspicious. Especially after all those others have been complaining for months.

"Unfortunate?"

Seriously?

will it just be the encore now?

Yes. I'm speaking only to the magnitude of his career and how unfortunate it is he let such horrible tendencies destroy it, in human tragedy terms for him. I wasn't speaking to the severity of what he's been accused of.

I think he's holding over 10% in the company and also has voting control over the close to 10% his ex-wife holds.

The only reason for institutional investors not to sack him after the sh*t show with his wife was the stock constantly overperforming and nobody wanting to change a running system. Apparently he's still very involved with day to day operations and obviously with their plans for the future.

I guess they have a couple people who could replace him as CEO. If they don't want to look externally, the natural replacement would be Matt Maddox whose been with Wynn for over 15 years, the last 4 as president. At 41 he's also their youngest C-level executive.

FWIW, he's also the RNC Finance Chair..

Totally agree- it's sad how his (alleged) personal behavior jeopardizes not only the properties he's developed but potentially the future of that part of the strip. I really hope there's a decent succession plan in place for him, but having his name on the building is another issue...

How fluid is the market? Like do people who stay at Wynn care about what prices at the Venetian are?

There's gotta be some but probably not as much as other resorts. I'm debating not staying at Encore this year for the WSOP. Really depends on what offers I'm given, which I'm sure will be posted in the next week or two considering MGM just sent out their early summer rates.

Stock lost like $2B today. If he owns 10%, that is a $200M hit. Serves him right.

not any more.....

Your suspicion absolutely confirms for me that Wynn is guilty.

It only gave back what it gained earlier in the week. I'm curious how it trades over the next few weeks though.

Jesus Christ.

He already paid one of them $7.5 million.

It takes courage for most people to put themselves into the spotlight and subject themselves to scrutiny, like the kind you've demonstrated with your post. Many will wait until they feel it's safe, like when they're just one of many making the accusations. There's also the issue of retaliation, which becomes less likely the more people step forward.

To be sure, someone like Wynn, or Cosby or Weinstein, can be a target of the random gold digger, fame seeker, or the victim of a conspiracy. But a competent journalist will ask the right questions to expose those so inclined, even if only to avoid criticism directed at themself. But even more likely, those so accused (and those inclined to defend them) are quick to use such excuses to avoid or minimize the damage to their reputations and finances.

The greater the number of people claiming to be victims becomes, the more likely the complaints are true (or mostly true). After three or four alleged victims come forward, I'd think the likelihood of the allegations being true are at least 95%. And that's without their stories being fully vetted. As that number grows, you're looking at a lock.

The fault in your logic is the assumption that people who say **** like what you responded to care about logic at all.

No self respecting hyperpartisan questions whether the allegations are true. It's about whether the allegations advance your political agenda. If they do, proof is irrelevant. If they don't, proof is also irrelevant.

Unless they don’t sexually abuse somebody. That’s also an option.

Disgraceful showing from the forum here.

Well, if they're relatively young they might not realize the points I made, but be open to other opinions. My observations over many years leads me to my opinion.

As to your second point, you're essentially claiming that poster is an hyperpartisan. Perhaps you have some specific knowledge of him/her that I do not. But I had no reason to think that. His/her post didn't suggest that to me. I prefer to address what was said, rather than the motive of the person who said it, unless there's a compelling reason to do the latter. Gennerally speaking, attacking motive rarely moves a discussion forward. Besides, attacking the motive of a biased person doesn't change them or their opinions. At best you label them hoping others will disregard their statements.

If the poster was a politician, then I would agree with your second point, as that seems to be all the rage in this country now. Most put partisanship before their professed principles, their dignity or their country.

I don't agree. Most posters agree with your opinion. Unless you're referring to the financial discussions. Then you have to remember this post was originally about Wynn building a new resort and was sidetracked by the allegations against him.

#NotAllPosters

Jokes aside, I've only seen two women-hating trolls ITT which is oddly encouraging to me, being that we're on the internet and all.

If he's still CEO on Feb 1 I'll be surprised. I can't imagine he's still CEO on March 1. The Massachusetts Gaming Commission is going to be the end of him unless his control of the company is so great he can survive losing the Boston license and the $1B+ the company already spent on construction there.

Macau might present the bigger problem. Authorities have already said they are "concerned about the allegations". Apparently it costs lots of money to make things like that go away in China.

I'm surprised no institutional investors have called for his ouster yet. Some said the allegations need an outside investigation, but most have remained surprisingly quiet.

This is probably being overcautious. Mike Pence is also overcautious in this regard. You should probably close the door if you're giving a subordinate a performance review, for example - leaving it open is probably inviting more trouble than leaving it closed.

What Steve Wynn allegedly did was way more active / intentional than any innocent misinterpretation. Even if he had consensual sex with subordinates it would be cause for termination in 90% of companies.

I think the only way he gets ousted is if keeping him proves to be a financial liability and or more allegations continue to surface and the board is getting pressure. Investors don’t care about this crap, they only care about returns.

Not entirely true. Confidence in the CEO's ability to execute is a big factor as well, and if half of the company is going to be reluctant to follow his orders or finding creative ways to circumvent them, it can be a problem organizationally.