http://www.eagletribune.com/news/new...313de65ee.html

Cliff Notes:

It's so bizarre. Puck even confirmed he had received notice from the state on May 8th. Why let this go for nearly a month? According to statute, the state only had to give them 10 days but seems they let them go a little longer. If it is as the story seems to indicate (that the landlord didn't submit accurate info), then why not send a letter from his (Puck's) lawyer to the landlord demanding the landlord comply or file a lawsuit to get the owner to cooperate. And what's up with the Dandreo family's standing with the state....

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Reading this thread, it seems like problems, drama and confusion follow this Puck guy around. It's strange.

Never Pucks fault tho. The gaming commission is lying!

FWIW, in the Puck vs. Commission brouhaha, just because one party is lying does not mean the other party isn't.

Are you implying that the gaming commission is lying? What motive would they have for this?
Puck has been shady and deceitful from the get go

Think about all the people that invested money in Cheers and also the employees. I feel terrible for them as well as the charities. They are the real losers in this situation.

While, I think Puck is mostly to blame for the rooms shortcomings, the commission needs to take some blame, which I think they somewhat did by giving Puck 30 days as opposed to the 10 days to get things in order.

If you go on the commission website and look at the applications, there is a specific application for the "GAMES OF CHANCE FOR A FACILITY LICENSE" In that application it specifically requests the information about the building owner's criminal background. While, Puck (or his lawyer) should've known to get the application completed by the landlord and filed from the jump, presumably the commission simply issued the license without requiring that application. What changed? Why all of a sudden is this an issue?

Link to the Application

It will be interesting to see how this plays out and see whether Cheers can weather the storm. Ceasing operations even for a week could have a ripple effect on the business, because as we know the traffic is already low.

A while back (before the announcement that Cheers was slated to open at the END OF SUMMER, which obviously didn't happen) I heard from someone (and have since confirmed) that Puck and some of his businesses had filed bankruptcy back in 2010. At the time I didn't think much of it. People file BK all the time for various reasons. But now after seeing everything play out, it might be indicative of where Cheers is heading. If the investors were aware of the BK would they have trusted Puck with their $$??

Yeah, government agencies are never deceitful. I also have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

To clarify, just because I believe government is corrupt in general doesn't mean I think Puck is being truthful.

Yes very strange. Who would of thought this guy was an imbecile and would fail miserably? 🤔

Blaming the state for this? You sound like a Dandreo.

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

The state absolutely shares part of the blame for the issue and they acknowledged that by giving him 30 days. Was that not clearly written in my post?

Are you suggesting that this is the first time in the history of organized government that a license was issued and then subsequently revoked after the state discovers that they failed to obtain all of the necessary information to issue the license??? Because based on everything I read, that's exactly what happened to Cheers.

Anything that happened after May 8th falls squarely on Puck and only Puck.

Amusing to see everyone bring their biases into this discussion, presuming to know so much that is still unknown.

My own bias: i don't think anyone has lied yet, and I'll wait until I see evidence of lying before deciding if anyone is.

It's funny, though, that Puck puts the badmouth to the government regulators every chance he gets, then is surprised to discover they don't hold him in high regard.

I'm also surprised to see the word "landlord" ITT. I always presumed Puck bought the property. He did all the work improving it--the parking lot, the build-out, etc.

If he does own the building and the business housed within, this stuff about "the criminal background and signature submitted by someone other than the owner" made me think he put someone else's name as owner, as a squeaky-clean front?

(insert pic of Kevin Pollack's character from Casino here)

Its far more likely a competitor dropped a dime on this over-site
than it is an overworked/ underpaid bureaucrat stumbled on this
all by his or her self

That doesnt sound logical, that someone dropped a dime, when they arent competeing with anyone. Why was that information left off to begin with? It is clear in the application what is what? Why wasnt it corrected with urgence if simple mistake was originally made. It was time sensitive...

Empty promises(Borgata North), no action, tons of mistakes/excuses, constantly.

Why arent people coming in droves, before this?

What competitve advantage do they possess?

What barriers are keeping them from improving?

What differentiation do they have?

What is missing?

Is there even a sustainabilty pool of players to warrant such a big room? Dont you want all tables full if possible even on lean days?

What did the marketing research say prior? Did it take into account multiple rooms in the area?

Is the location an issue?





Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk

puckheads eat up any conspiracy he puts out there. What is it with you people and your love affair with him?

Maybe he shouldn't have misfiled paperwork and gotten it right the first time. And the state gave him more than ample time to rectify it.

I feel like puck has a cult following and his workers are paying the price.
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

Those tournaments with 100 people are 50 dollar tournaments and rarely get 100 people.

This is an astute twist of Occam's Razor. I like it.

I like to remain open minded, and even though I have a strong dislike of Cheers and the culture Puck seems to promote, with mentioning by Puck of the "property owner" being the reason they were shut down even I felt sympathy to some degree. Then someone shared the list of things Cheers is accused of and at this point, there sure seems to be nobody to blame but Puck. And even after this info is out there he is continuing to lie and say it is about the property owner. Read every word of this notice, if Cheers is allowed to reopen they have a lot of obstacles ahead.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Ugh, that NH Lottery logo. Before I started reading, I wondered when the NHL started a lottery...and why they would be writing to/about Cheers.

The last paragraph will take your breath away. Forget the $12.5k in fines--the Lottery Commission is requiring Cheers to increase their bond from $25k to $150k, due in about two weeks.

You're 100% right, you actually have to read this thing, start to finish, to grasp its enormity. I've got some free time to kill right now, allow me to Cliff Notes it:

FROM: Lottery
TO: Cheers
DATE: May 24, 2018

INTRODUCTION: We're fining you, total of $12,500.

PARTIES: We're the Lottery, you're Cheers

STATEMENT OF FACT AND LAW:

1. We're the lottery, we run things, and are authorized to hand out fines.

2. You're Cheers, you answer to us.

3. The owner isn't allowed to gamble there. We got a report in January that Puck was playing poker there. This is a "moderate" violation. We sent a letter of warning.

4. End of March, Cheers failed to submit their monthly High Hand Promotion report within ten days, "per the Commission's request". Another "moderate" violation, another warning letter.

5. End of April, Cheers has 15 days to submit their monthly Games of Chance report, failed to do so (and as of May 24, the date of this letter, the state STILL hasn't received these numbers). Another "moderate" violation, but this is the 3rd one. Piling up three of these in a two-year stretch puts us in "major" violation (two years? only took Cheers, what? five months?). No more warning letters, this one gets you a $1k fine.

6. In April, Commission learns that Cheers doesn't own the property. On May 7, they tell Puck they need "a corrected application, completed by the true owner of the property, must be submitted immediately, or the current facility license would be revoked." As of May 23, no corrected app submitted. Major violation, $5k fine.

7. Regs say Cheers must submit copies of digital records upon request. "On multiple occasions in May of 2018" the Commission asked for copies of "digital records of their surveillance system". Never received them. Another moderate violation, another $1,500 fine.

8. (This one seems a little odd to me). Regs say you need to keep your surveillance video records for 45 days. "On May 22, 2018, the Commission discovered that the digital surveillance recordings captured prior to April 9 had been deleted...also...such a deletion could not be deemed accidental." Major violation, $5k fine, and failure to correct this within five days could result in facility license being revoked.

(I say odd because April 9-May 22 is what? 43 days? Unless there was a specific incident being investigated on Day 44 or 45, "major" seems like overkill on this one. I can only guess that they. Are. DONE! With words like "minor" or "moderate" at this point? He's exhausted their patience, in less than six months on the job?)

BOTTOM LINE: Commission has discretion to levy fines between $250 and $5k for each offense. Given severity of violations and previous history (history? THEY JUST OPENED! they already have a "history"!), $12,500 fine seems about right.

Oh...and you're gonna need a bigger bond. A MUCH bigger bond.

***

I'm so sorry for the employees. They bought a load of hype--and if I were living in that region, I would have signed up for it, too.

I won't say I'll be surprised if they ever reopen--but I sure won't be surprised if they don't.

And this really annoys me, too. On his personal FB page his employees are still claiming Chasers is somehow able to get the government to interfere with his business. Which, even if that were plausible, would be a useless endeavor if Cheers was doing everything by the book! And even if Puck isn't saying it himself in public anymore, he certainly isn't doing anything to keep his employees from spreading these lies for him, even on his own Facebook.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

What a **** show, regardless of who is ultimately to blame.