Home » News » Business » Bally’s Withdraws From Planned Nittany Mall Casino, but Project Will ‘Proceed as Planned’

Bally’s Withdraws From Planned Nittany Mall Casino, but Project Will ‘Proceed as Planned’

State College - casino rendering

Preliminary design rendering of the exterior of the proposed casino at the Nittany Mall. Image by Nelson Worldwide

Geoff Rushton

,

Bally’s Corporation will no longer be involved with construction and management of the planned casino at the Nittany Mall, but the project will still “proceed as planned,” according to a news release on Friday.

The company exercised its option to terminate its framework agreement with casino developer SC Gaming after three years, which Bally’s says “aligns with its long-term strategic goals and  allows the company to allocate resources towards other priorities.” Bally’s has major casino development projects underway in Chicago and Las Vegas.

“We are grateful for the collaboration and achievements we have accomplished with SC Gaming over the past three years,” George Papanier, president of Bally’s Corporation, said in a statement. “However, as  our strategic focus evolves, we have made the difficult decision to conclude our relationship. We extend SC Gaming our best wishes for their ongoing development efforts and for their continued success.”

Bally’s withdrawal will have “no impact on the project’s progress,” according to the joint news release, and the casino, which will be located in the former Macy’s location at the College Township mall, is expected to open in 2026.

Ira Lubert, the investor, Penn State alumnus and former university trustee, is the owner of SC Gaming and won a September 2020 auction to apply for a category 4 casino license with a $10 million bid. He partnered with Bally’s in early 2021 to jointly design, develop, construct and manage the casino at the Nittany Mall on the estimated $130 million project.

Lubert said on Friday that SC Gaming remains “on track to bring this transformational development to life for Central Pennsylvania.”

“As a part of the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board’s application and approval process, I demonstrated to the Board my resources and capability to independently develop and operate this casino project without reliance on a third party, including Bally’s,” Lubert said. “I have a proven track record of casino resort development in Pennsylvania, having successfully developed the Valley Forge Casino Resort during the challenging economic conditions following the 2008 financial crisis. With that experience, I am fully confident that this project will be a success, delivering a casino development that both College Township and the Commonwealth can take pride in.”

According to plans detailed at an August 2021 public hearing, the casino in the 94,000-square-foot anchor spot at the mall will operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It will have 750 slot machines, 30 table games and sports betting along with a sports-themed restaurant and bar with an entertainment stage and a multi-outlet quick-serve food court.

All aspects of the casino, which will be non-smoking, will be open only to individuals age 21 and older, including the restaurant and food court. It will have two exterior public entrances and one from inside the mall, with ID scanning employed at each.

It is expected to employ 350 to 400 full-time equivalent positions, offering a “very competitive compensation and benefits package,” Eric Pearson, the casino’s CEO, said at the hearing.

Though the state licensing process began in 2021, it was only resolved in July of this year after legal challenges from the losing 2020 auction bidder, Stadium Casino.

Lubert was eligible to bid because of his previous ownership interests in other casinos.

Stadium contended that the Gaming Control Board should never have been able to consider Lubert’s bid because, though he paid for the bid from his personal account, other parties who would not have been eligible to contributed to the funds, including local developer Robert Poole and Penn State trustee Richard Sokolov. The company argued that Lubert acted as a “Trojan horse for hire” and that Bally’s would eventually take over ownership.

The state Supreme Court ruled that the board acted properly in awarding the license to Lubert and dismissed the challenge.